alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

January 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41756 c/w No. 02-41790 c/w No. 02-41791 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELEUTERIO GRACIA-GRACIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B:02-CR-619-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eleuterio Gracia-Gracia appeals his illegal reentry

conviction and the revocation of the proba tionary term imposed

pursuant to his misdemeanor conviction for unlawful entry.

He argues that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment upon

the revocation of his probationary term was plain error because he2

was not advised of the danger s of self-representation when he

waived his right to counsel and pleaded guilty to unlawful entry.

Assuming arguendo t hat a direct appeal is the proper

avenue for Gracia-Gracia’s challenge, and that the factual

questions in regard to waiver of counsel are susceptible of review,

the recor d evidence shows that he validly waived his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel. With the aid of an interpreter, the

magistrate judge informed Gracia-Gracia three times of his right to

appointment of counsel and explained the maximum possible sentence

for his misdemeanor charge. Gracia-Gracia also signed a written

waiver drafted in his native Spanish, in which he acknowledged but

waived his right to appointment of counsel. Although Gracia-Gracia

was arraigned in a group, had only a sixth-grade education, and

could not speak English, he has n ever complained that he did not

understand the right to counsel or the consequence of its waiver.

Moreover, Gracia-Gracia was able to appreciate the va lue of that

right during hi s prior adjudication on the charge of alien

t r ansportation. We therefore hold that Gracia-Gracia validly

waived his Sixth Amendment right. See Argersinger v. Hamlin , 407

U.S. 25, 37 (1972).

Graci a-Gracia concedes that the issue whether 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1)&(2) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey
, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States

, 52 3 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises it only to

preserve its further review. We must follow the precedent set3

in Almend arez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.” U nited States v. Dabeit

, 231 F.3d 979,

984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED

.
EXHIBIT 10.56



THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE PTEK HOLDINGS, INC. 401(k) PLAN



THIS
THIRD AMENDMENT to the PTEK Holdings, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the Plan) is made on this 3rdday of
February, 2005, by the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the Committee).



W I T N E S S E T H:



WHEREAS, Plan Section 13.1 provides that the Committee has the right to amend the Plan at any time; and



WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to reflect the name change of the company from PTEK Holdings, Inc. to Premiere Global Services,
Inc., effective as of January 3, 2005;



NOW, THEREFORE,
the Plan hereby is amended as follows:



1. Effective as of
January 3, 2005, the name of the Controlling Company (as defined in Section 1.23 of the Plan) is changed to Premiere Global Services, Inc. wherever it appears in the Plan, unless the context indicates otherwise.



2. Effective as of January 3, 2005, the name of the Plan is changed to
Premiere Global Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan wherever it appears in the Plan, unless the context indicates otherwise.



3. Effective as of January 3, 2005, Appendix A is amended to reflect the change in the name of the company from PTEK Holdings, Inc. to Premiere Global
Services, Inc.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment
has been executed by the duly authorized representative of the Committee on the date first above written.



ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PTEK HOLDINGS, INC. 401(k) PLAN/s/ Michael E. HavenerMichael E. Havener, CFO/s/ Alison SheehanAlison Sheehan, VP, Human Resources/s/ Lois SwartwoodLois Swartwood, Benefits Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF WINDSOR REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST 8 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN THE ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         142,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,634,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 829,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,708,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,363,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,121,700
<COMMON>                                     1,922,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   (947,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,708,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,174,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  580,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               415,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (299,900)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (121,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (121,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (121,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50535 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Efrain Rodriguez -**  **Perez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:23 - CR - 41 - 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Efrain Rodriguez - Perez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) . In his sole issue on appeal, Rodriguez - Perez contends that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50535 Document: 00517003747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023No. 23 - 50535

2 a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief explaining that he has raised this issue only to preserve it for further review and conceding correctly that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019) . Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Rodriguez - Perez ’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-50535 Document: 00517003747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2023
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Byrnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ JOHN P. BYRNESJohn P. Byrnes Chief Executive Officer


February 25, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 25, 2017

No. 04

- 15

- 00806

- CR

Michael Wilfred LAFLAMME

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRW160

- D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, C hief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the A ppellant ’ s Motion to Stay Mandate, and the motion is

hereby MOOT.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,207,902
<SECURITIES>                                    47,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                  495,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    149,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,388,279
<PP&E>                                       7,850,861
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,600,461)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,034,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,353,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,107,630
<PREFERRED>                                 10,000,000
<COMMON>                                    23,261,912
<OTHER-SE>                                 (35,688,455)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,034,865
<SALES>                                        478,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               478,159
<CGS>                                          264,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  264,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,537,316
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,257,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (7,257,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      138,469
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,119,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.98)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE IS NOT DISCLOSED BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THE
EXCHANGE OR EXERCISE OF COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS WOULD BE ANTIDILUTIVE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

28 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00260

- CV

IN RE AIMEE WOOLWINE , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 312th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 21

- 05391



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 11, 2022 , relator Aimee Woolwine filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to com p el t he Honorable Clinton E. Wells, Jr., presiding judge of the 312th District Court of Harris County
, to

va cate the trial court ’s February 2, 2022 oral order setting aside the Mediated Settlement Agreement ( “ MSA ” ) and ordering the parties back to media tio n

.2

Relator further requests that this Court direct the trial court t o enter judgment on
the terms of the MSA and to sign the proposed fi nal divorce decree submitted to the trial court by relator with her motion to enter final decree of divorce

. Relator ha s not established that s he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-11281, 333-17593, 333-29787,333-39693, 333-52357, 333-79599, 333-87635, 333-89891, 333-51380, 333-57698, 333-67292, 333-101262) and Form S-3 (No. 333-36557) of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (f/k/a PTEK Holdings, Inc.) of our report dated March 27, 2003 relating to thefinancial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 14, 2005
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.30* 0.00 * 0%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

* A change in the investment of trust fund reserves to include some equities affects the size of all summarized measures because increased 

"present-value" discounting reduces the weight on values for more distant future years. As a result, the magnitude of the current-law actuarial 

balance and the summarized effects of most proposals is reduced. Therefore, the size of the change in the long-range actuarial balance 

indicated here cannot be interpreted directly as a reduction in the shortfall. The actual reduction in the shortfall from equity investment 

depends on the amount of reserves that are available for investment throughout the period. For example, if provisions to change revenue or 

scheduled benefits resulted in a purely pay-as-you-go system (reserves just above zero throughout the period), then investment in equities 

would have no effect on the actuarial balance.

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Trust Fund Investment in Equities

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: G6. Invest 25 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 

2026-2035), assuming an ultimate 5.8 percent annual real rate of return on equities.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.5: Increase benefits by 5 percent for all beneficiaries as of the beginning of 2024 and for those newly eligible for benefits after the beginning of 2024.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          231041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2757035
<PP&E>                                          364038
<DEPRECIATION>                                   63065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3143821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           364038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         21292
<OTHER-SE>                                        2723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3143821
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3008391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3000271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3001871)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3001871)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131539 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JOHN COPELAND, a/k/a Stephen J. Markman, HAKEEM ABDUL HAKEEM, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 131539 

 COA: 266252 
 Wayne CC: 04-415304-CH

MANUFACTURES & TRADERS TRUST,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4591]



[[Page 10414]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-213]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.; Notice of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued 
Amendment No. 182 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 issued to 
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (the licensee), which revised 
the Technical Specifications for operation of the Haddam Neck Plant 
located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. The amendment is effective as 
of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 30 days.
    The amendment revises Technical Specification 3/4.4.9, ``Pressure/
Temperature Limits, Reactor Coolant System,'' Figures 3.4-3, 4, and 5 
and the associated Bases section. The amendment replaces these TS 
figures as a result of reanalyses in response to NRC Information Notice 
93-58, ``Nonconservatism in Low Temperature Overpressurization 
Protection for Pressurized Water Reactors.''
    The application for the amendment complies with the standards and 
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 
and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made 
appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules 
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license 
amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity 
for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal 
Register on May 16, 1994 (59 FR 25507). No request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
    The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to 
the action and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement. Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has 
concluded that the issuance of this amendment will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment (60 FR 
7588).
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment dated April 7, 1994, as supplemented November 
4, 1994, (2) Amendment No. 182 to License No. DPR-61, (3) the 
Commission's related Safety Evaluation, and (4) the Commission's 
Environmental Assessment. All of these items are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, 
Middletown, CT 06457.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-4591 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M