alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GUILLERMO AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant GuillermoAyala was convicted below of illegal reentry into the United States in viol ation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)-(b). Prior to being deported, Ayala was convicted of indecency with a child in violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1). Equating “indecency with a child” under Texas law with “sexual abuse ofa minor” for purposes of § 2L1.2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the district court enhanced Ayal a’s offense level by sixteen and imposed a sentence of seventy-eight months’ imprisonment. Ayala contends that § 21.11(a)(1) proscribes conduct beyond that falling within the ordinary and contemporary meaning of“sexual abuse ofa minor,” and therefore that his prior conviction under that statute is not a legitimate basis for
a crime-of-violence enhancement under the Guidelines. Specifically, he argues that the definition of “child” under § 21.11(a)—a person less than seventeen United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-41149

2 years of age—is inconsistent with the contemporary and ordinary meaning of “minor” because, for purposes of many states’ statutory rape laws, a person’s “age of consent” is deemed to be sixteen. See generally United States v. LopezDeleon, 513 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2008) (discussing when children reach the age of consent under various states’ statutory rape laws). As Ayala recognizes, we have already addressed the issue of whether a violation of§ 21.11(a) constitutes sexual abuse ofa minor for purposesof§ 2L1.2; in answering in the affirmative, we have stated that “‘a child younger than 17 years[]’ is clearly a ‘minor.’” U nited Statesv. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting § 21.11(a)); see also United States v. Najera-Najera, 519 F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2008) (relying on Zavala-S ustaita in stating “under generic-meaning analysis, a person younger than 17 years old is a ‘child’”). Because our precedent foreclosesAyala’s argument, thejudgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6104

LARRY EUGENE SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise A. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:07-hc-2012-FL)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Eugene Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Eugene Smith, Jr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for

appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### George V. Sims, Respondent, v. William E. D. Vyse, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Brady, J.
#### STATE v. ALBERT SANDERS and JOSEPH MARVIN FARMER.

(Filed 21 May, 1947.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4)—

Where writ of *certiorari*is allowed, *but*thereafter appellant fails to file case on appeal in the Superior Court, notwithstanding it had been settled by the trial judge, or docket same in the Supreme Court, and counsel for appellant advises that the appeal will not be perfected, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket the appeal and dismiss the writ of *certiorari*must be allowed, but in a capital case this will be done only after an examination of the record proper fails to disclose error.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

Per Curiam.

At the December Term, 1946, Johnston County Superior Court, the defendants herein were tried upon indictment charging them with the murder of one Robert Mitchell. There was verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree as to both defendants. Sentence of death by asphyxiation was pronounced. From the judgment thus entered the defendants appealed. Thereafter they docketed the record proper and applied for a writ of *certiorari.*This Court, for the purpose of preserving defendants’ right of appeal and to allow them time in which to have ease on appeal settled and the cause docketed here, granted the writ 25 February 1947.

Since the granting of the writ no ease on appeal has been docketed in this Court. Instead, counsel have written the clerk as follows: “This is to advise you and the Court that the appeal will not be perfected.” Likewise, the Clerk of the Superior Court has certified to this Court that the appeal .has not been perfected and no case on appeal has been filed in his office. It further appears that the trial judge officially settled the case on appeal, but counsel, for reasons satisfactory to them, did not file the case so settled in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court.

The foregoing facts being made to appear to the Attorney-General, he moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to docket the same and that the *ceHiorari*heretofore issued be dismissed and the judgment below affirmed.

*475The motion of the Attorney-General must be allowed. Even so, this being a capital ease, it is the custom of this Court to examine the record docketed to ascertain whether any error appears on the face thereof. This we have done, and we find no error therein. Therefore the writ of *certiorari*is dismissed and the judgment of the court below is affirmed. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455; *S. v. Moody,*222 N. C., 763, 24 S. E. (2d), 530.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 45 0 . NEI L L. W I LCOVE v . KELLY C. W I LCOVE.

Nei l an d K el ly W il co v e d i v o rced i n 2 0 0 8

. Kel l y Wi l c o v e su b seq u en t l y fi l ed

a m o t i o n f

o r co n t em

p t ag ai n s t Nei l W i l co v e, al l eg i n g th at h e h ad vi o l at ed s ev eral

p ro v is i o n s o f t h e p art ies ’ d i vo rce d ecree, i ncl u d in g h is o bl i g a t i o n t o p ay m ed i cal

ex p en s es

, i n s u ran ce h eal t h p rem i u m s

, an d “ s p eci al ex pen s es

. ” Th e t ri al co u rt h el d

Nei l W il co ve i n co n t em

p t

, o rd eri n g h i m t o p ay rei m b urs em en t s fo r m ed i cal ex p en s es

an d i ns u ran ce p rem i u m s

, as wel l as ar r e a rag es of $ 70 0 p er m o n th in “ s p eci al

ex p en s es .” Nei l W il co v e fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o nary ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ru l i n g. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

.

U n d er t h e Geo rg i a Co n s t i t u t i on o f 1 9 8 3

, Art

. V I, Sec. V I, Par. III (6 ), t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt has ap p el l at e ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er “ [a] l l d i v o rce an d al i m o ny cas es .”

“ [A] n ap p eal fro m t h e ju d g m en t i n a co n t em p t act i o n s eek i n g t o en fo rce an y p o rt i o n

o f [a] d i v o rce d ecree o t h er t h an ch i l d cu s t o d y i s an ci l l ary t o d iv o rce an d al i m o n y an d

fal l s wi t h i n [t h e S u p rem e] Co u rt ’ s ju ri s di ct i o n o v er ‘ d i v o rce an d al i m o n y cas es .’

[ C i t s .] ” Ro g er

s v. McGa hee

, 2 7 8 Ga. 2 8 7

, 28 8 (1 ) (6 0 2 SE2 d 5 8 2 ) (2 0 04 ); s ee al s o

Mo r r i s v. Mo r r i s

, 2 8 4 Ga. 7 48

, 7 5 0 (2 ) (6 7 0 SE2 d 84 ) (2 0 08 ). Becau s e t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt h as ju ri s d ict i o n o v er N ei l W i l co v e’ s ap p eal

, we h ereb y T RANSFER t h i s cas e

t o t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a. June 26, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 06/26/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF ESSENTIAL RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS(1).
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                        218,195
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 222,097
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   329,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,383,033
<PP&E>                        92,577
<DEPRECIATION>                16,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,655,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,224,641
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      2,519
<OTHER-SE>                    329,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,655,387
<SALES>                       2,340,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,441,338
<CGS>                         1,082,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 870,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            24,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>               463,196
<INCOME-TAX>                  170,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           293,196
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  293,196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .10
<FN>
(1) The information provided relates to the six month transitional year ended
June 30, 1996
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Grace  Sim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB  of MW Medical, Inc. for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
on  Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and  results  of  operations  of  MW  Medical,  Inc.


                             By:       /s/ Grace  Sim
                                       --------------------
                             Name:     Grace  Sim
                             Title:    Chief  Financial  Officer

                             Date:     May  29,  2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             MASTER GRAPHICS, INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                          -------------------
                                                               1998       1999
                                                               ----       ----
Net earnings                                              $     443  $      60
Less preferred stock dividends                                    0        (30)
Less accretion of preferred stock discount                        0        (30)
                                                          --------------------
Net earnings applicable to common shares                        443          0
                                                          ====================


Basic:
 Weighted average common shares outstanding               4,000,000  7,894,818
                                                          ====================
 Basic earnings per share                                 $    0.11  $    0.00
                                                          ====================

Diluted:
 Net earnings applicable to common shares                       443          0
 Plus preferred stock dividend and discount
  accretion                                                      --         60
 Plus deferred compensation provision                            --         12
                                                          --------------------
                                                          $     443  $      72
                                                          ====================

 Weighted average common shares outstanding               4,000,000  7,894,818
 Assumed exercise of lender warrants                        444,440    220,000
 Assumed exercise of the stock option clause in the
  deferred compensation agreements                                0    100,000
 Assumed conversion of preferred stock                            0    177,776
                                                          --------------------
                                                          4,444,440  8,392,594
                                                          ====================
 Diluted earnings per share                               $    0.10  $    0.01
                                                          ====================
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 20, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 20, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0316. SUSAN WHITNEY RENFROE v. JEFFREY TODD RENFROE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 20A00004
<PAGE>
                          GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                   EXHIBIT 11

Basic and fully diluted earnings per share ("EPS") are determined as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS
                                                                     ENDED
                                                                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                              -------------------
                                                                2000       1999
                                                              --------   --------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>
Basic EPS Computation
Numerator:
  Net income................................................  $   543     $  331
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares............................    9,498      9,498
                                                              =======     ======
Basic EPS...................................................  $  0.06     $ 0.03
                                                              =======     ======
Diluted EPS Computation
Numerator:
  Net income and assumed conversions........................  $   543     $  331
                                                              =======     ======
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding................    9,498      9,498
  Stock options.............................................      140        105
                                                              -------     ------
  Adjusted weighted average common shares...................    9,638      9,603
                                                              =======     ======
Diluted EPS.................................................  $  0.06     $ 0.03
                                                              =======     ======
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 10791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5075]





                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents 
[[Page 10791]] 
                Memorandum of February 15, 1995

                
Delegation of Responsibilities Under Section 
                1205(d) and 1207(c) of Title XII of Public Law 103-337

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of Defense

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States of America, including 
                section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, I 
                hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the 
                authorities and duties vested in the President under 
                sections 1205(d) and 1207(c) of Title XII of the 
                National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
                (Public Law 103-337), to be exercised in consultation 
                with the Secretary of Defense.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1>><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, February 15, 1995.

[FR Doc. 95-5075
Filed 2-24-95; 4:04 pm]
Billing code 4710-10-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

718 

CA 11-00275 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

CHERYL A. HAAS AND WILLIAM K. HAAS, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

F.F. THOMPSON HOSPITAL, INC., F.F. THOMPSON 

HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., F.F. THOMPSON FOUNDATION, 

INC., F.F. THOMPSON CONTINUING CARE CENTER, 

INC., ELIZABETH DUBOVSKY, M.D., JOHN NICHOLS, 

M.D., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

HIRSCH & TUBIOLO, P.C., ROCHESTER (CHRISTOPHER S. NOONE OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

DIBBLE & MILLER, P.C., ROCHESTER (JOHN J. JAKUBEK OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County

(William F. Kocher, A.J.), entered June 22, 2010 in a medical

malpractice action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those

parts of the motion of defendants F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc., F.F.

Thompson Health System, Inc., F.F. Thompson Foundation, Inc., F.F.

Thompson Continuing Care Center, Inc., Elizabeth Dubovsky, M.D. and

John Nichols, M.D. seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint

against them. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants-appellants (defendants) appeal from an

order that, inter alia, denied those parts of their motion for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint against them in this medical

malpractice action. We affirm. Even assuming, arguendo, that

defendants met their initial burden on the motion, we conclude that

plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the

motion by submitting the affidavit of their medical expert (see

Selmensberger v Kaleida Health, 45 AD3d 1435, 1436; see generally

Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). “The conflicting

opinions of the experts for plaintiff[s] and defendant[s] with respect

to . . . defendant[s’] alleged deviation[s] from the accepted standard

of medical care [and whether those alleged deviations affected the

extent of the injuries sustained by plaintiff Cheryl A. Haas] present

credibility issues that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary
-2- 718 

CA 11-00275 

judgment” (Ferlito v Dara, 306 AD2d 874; see Gedon v Bry-Lin Hosps.,

286 AD2d 892, 894, lv denied 98 NY2d 601).

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.1



[LOGO OF CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INC.]



August 12, 2003



Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20549



| | Re: |  | Conrad Industries, Inc.
| | --- |  | -----------------------

| |  |  | Certification of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Conrad Industries, Inc. filed today, via EDGAR, its quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003. The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is being filed as an
exhibit to the Form 10-Q.



Very truly yours,



/s/    Kenneth G. Myers, Jr.Kenneth G. (Jerry) Myers, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer/s/    Lewis J. Derbes, Jr.Lewis J. Derbes, Jr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer