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

_____________

Nos. 17

- 3752, 18

- 1253, 19

- 1129, 19

- 1189

_____________

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED S TATES OF AMERICA

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home (Intervenor in D.C.), Appellant in 17

- 3752, 19

- 1129

President United States of America, Secretary United States of Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary United States Department of Treasury, United States Department of Treasury, Secretary United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellants in 1 8

- 1253,
19

- 1189 (Except President United States of America)

______________ ________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

______________ ________

At the direction of the Court, t he opinion filed on July 12, 2019 is amended as
follows:

Page 44, first full paragraph, second to last line, the last word: omit “ the ” so it reads “as provided for in comprehensive guidelines.” ; and,Page 51 , first full paragraph, the opinion includes the following sentence and quotation: “No tradition, and no prior decision under RFRA, allows a religion

- based exemption when the [A]ccommodation would be harmful to others

— here, the very persons the contraceptive coverage requirement was designed to protect.” Hobby Lobby , 573 U.S. at 764 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) replace concurring with dissenting so that the citation
reads Hobby Lobby

, 573 U.S. at 764 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit
Clerk

Date: July 18, 2019

cc: All Counsel of Record
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-51093

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ever Sanchez-Herrera,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CR-1230-1

______________________________

Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ever Sanchez-Herrera appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). In his sole 

issue on appeal, Sanchez-Herrera contends that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional 

because it permits a sentence above the otherwise-applicable statutory 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51093 Document: 00516788695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-51093

2

maximum based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor 

found by a jury beyond 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 correctly conceding 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), Herrera-Sanchez’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-51093 Document: 00516788695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary L. Magee, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Allegany County Court, Feeman, Jr., J.—felony driving while intoxicated.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Money Tree Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 25, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bradley D. Bellville, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Morrison, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



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



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



|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  |                         
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: |  | May 9, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bradley D. Bellville
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Bradley D. Bellville    
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|      |  |             |  | 
|Date: |  | May 9, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven P. Morrison  
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Steven P. Morrison      
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report of Peer Review
Mediation and Arbitration, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Marc E. Combs, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, 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) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.

/s/Marc E. Combs
-----------------------------
Marc E. Combs
Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2010
EXHIBIT 4.57

             AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH NIKOLAOS CACOS
                             DATED JANUARY 5, 2004











<PAGE>

[IMA EXPLORATION INC. LETTERHEAD]


January 5, 2004




Mr. Niko Cacos
Suite 2507, 1408 Strathmore Mews,
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 3A9

Dear Niko,

Please accept this letter to confirm that your current contract with the Company
will be amended effective January 1, 2004. The monthly fee will be reduced to
$2,200.00, $1,650.00, $1,375.00 per month for January, February and March onward
and under the same terms currently in place and will be reviewed annually.

If you are in agreement please sign below.

Yours truly,


/s/ WILLIAM LEE

IMA Exploration Inc.
Mr. William Lee
Chief Financial Officer


I have read the above letter and agree to the terms as outlined.



/s/ NIKOLAOS CACOS                                    Jan 5/04
---------------------------------                    ---------------------------
Niko Cacos                                           Date







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   TERMINAL CITY CLUB TOWER, SUITE709-837 WEST HASTINGS STREET, VANCOUVER, BC,
                                 CANADA V6C 3N6
         TEL: 604.687.1828 * FAX: 604.687.1858 * TOLL FREE: 800.901.0058
      WWW.IMAEXPLORATION.COM * E-MAIL: INFO@IMAEXPLORATION.COM * TSX-V:IMR
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Miller, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered August 8, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant waived his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction, including the sentence imposed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002



I, Robert F. Aufenanger, certify that:



1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other
certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this
report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|Date: January 28, 2005         
|                               
|/s/ Robert F. Aufenanger       
|Robert F. Aufenanger, Treasurer
#### In the Interest of T.G. & D.M.G., Plaintiff. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. N.G.—Natural Mother, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48213, WD 48214.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 22, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 3, 1994.

Phil Appenzeller, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.

Mary Marquez, Kansas City, for respondent.

Dale Nathan Godfrey, Kansas City, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to § 211.447, RSMo 1986.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19939-19940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10869]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Policy Statement on the Fitness and Integrity of Lessors of Real 
Property to the FDIC

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Statement of policy; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the statement of policy beginning on page 5554 in the issue 
of Tuesday, February 13, 1996, make the following correction:
    Change the reference ``paragraph III.B. (1) through (4) to 
``paragraph III.B. (1) through (5)'' each time it appears in the 
following places:

--On page 5555, in the third column, in paragraph V.A. (1)(b);
--On page 5556, in the second column, in paragraph V.B. (1)(a), and in 
the third column in paragraph V.B.(4).


[[Page 19940]]


    Dated: April 26, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10869 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6417-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey JEFFERSON, Appellant. Jeffrey JEFFERSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66472, 68046.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 10, 1995.

*382Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Jefferson appeals convictions of Assault First Degree, in violation of § 565.050 RSMo 1994, and Armed Criminal Action, in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1994, and denial of his untimely Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief. We find no *Batson*error, based on gender and no error in denying a request for mistrial. Dismissal of Rule 29.15 motion as untimely is required by *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential value. Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jairo Lopez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered April 26, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Robert H. Weiss is relieved as attorney for the defendant and he . is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Florence Kerner, of P.O. Box 601, Huntington, New York 11743, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order of this court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Based upon this court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that arguable issues exist with respect, *inter alia,*to restitution. Under the circumstances, the motion of the *624defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned *(see, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606; *People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906; *People v Miller,*99 AD2d 1021). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to incorporation by
reference in the previously filed Registration Statement on Forms S-8 File Nos. 333-69420 and 333-69416 and Form S-3 File No. 33-71692 of Dimeco, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2009, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial
statements, which appears in the December 31, 2008, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dimeco, Inc.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
|Wexford, Pennsylvania   
|March 23, 2009
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 Quarterly Report of PanAmSat Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Inglese, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|Date: May 11, 2006 |  | /s/MICHAEL J. INGLESEMichael J. Inglese Executive Vice
President and
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIVERCARD, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

SCOT PATRIQUIN and PATRIQUIN

LAW PROFESSIONAL

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16794

D.C. No. 

2:13-cv-02123-LDG-NJK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,

** Senior

District Judge.

 

FILED

MAY 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge

for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Page 2

1. “A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country’s law

must give notice by a pleading or other writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Notice

must be given “at a time that is reasonable” and “generally . . . before or during the

pretrial conference.” DP Aviation v. Smiths Indus. Aerospace & Def. Sys. Ltd.,

268 F.3d 829, 847 (9th Cir. 2001). Patriquin twice invoked Ontario’s statute of

limitations: as an affirmative defense in its answer and in its motion for summary

judgment. Because both of those pleadings were filed before the district court

scheduled a pretrial conference, Patriquin provided reasonable notice of Canada’s

statute of limitations.

2. Nothing in the record suggests that the parties chose Ontario law in

bad faith and in an attempt to evade Nevada law. See id. Moreover, Ontario has a

substantial relationship to the escrow agreement. See Williams v. United Servs.

Auto. Ass’n, 849 P.2d 265, 266 (Nev. 1993). Patriquin Law, a Toronto law firm,

released the escrow funds to Post Oak Productions, Inc., an Ontario-based

corporation. Finally, the district court’s deference to Ontario law is consistent with

Nevada’s public policy interest in “protecting the freedom of persons to contract.”

Hansen v. Edwards, 426 P.2d 792, 793 (Nev. 1967). The escrow agreement’s
Page 3

choice-of-law provision is therefore valid under Nevada’s three-factor test. See

Engel v. Ernst, 724 P.2d 215, 217 (Nev. 1986). 

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5546 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit individuals eligible 

for Indian Health Service assistance to qualify for health savings accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Mr. MOOLENAAR (for himself, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, and Mr. FEENSTRA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

individuals eligible for Indian Health Service assistance 

to qualify for health savings accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native American 

5 Health Savings Improvement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5546 IH

1 SEC. 2. INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR INDIAN HEALTH SERV2 ICE ASSISTANCE NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM 

3 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(c)(1) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(D) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS EL8 IGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER INDIAN

9 HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS.—For purposes of 

10 subparagraph (A)(ii), an individual shall not be 

11 treated as covered under a health plan de12 scribed in such subparagraph merely because 

13 the individual receives hospital care or medical 

14 services under a medical care program of the 

15 Indian Health Service or of a tribal organiza16 tion.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Donald F. DYCK, Defendant/Appellant. Donald F. DYCK, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63033, 65613.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 18, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a conviction of murder in the first degree, § 565.020.1, armed criminal action, § 571.015, and unlaw*514ful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(4). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life without the possibility of parole, fifty years, and five years, respectively. This appeal is consolidated with an appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have read the briefs, reviewed the legal file and transcript. We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment affirmed. The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).