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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30723

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JARIUS T. CARSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:19-CR-86-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jarius T. Carson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and 

ammunition by a conviction felon, and was sentenced within the advisory 

guidelines range to 46 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of 

supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court

impermissibly delegated its judicial authority by imposing two special 

supervised release conditions requiring Carson to submit to any additional 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30723 Document: 00515404796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
No. 19-30723

2

substance abuse testing and to participate in a substance abuse program “as 

administered and approved” by the United States Probation Office. He 

concedes that our review is for plain error, because he did not object to the 

imposition of the conditions at sentencing.

To show reversible plain error, Carson must show a forfeited error that 

is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). “The imposition of a sentence, including the 

terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that 

cannot be delegated.” United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 

2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although a district 

court can properly delegate “decisions as to the details of a condition of 

supervised release” to a probation officer, “a court impermissibly delegates 

judicial authority when it gives a probation officer authority to decide whether

a defendant will participate in a treatment program.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Here, the language of the disputed conditions requires Carson to submit 

to additional testing and to participate in a substance abuse program, with the 

details (“administered and approved”) to be left to the discretion of the 

probation office. This is not an impermissible judicial delegation. See 

Franklin, 838 F.3d at 568. Carson has not demonstrated plain error. See

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30723 Document: 00515404796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
#### Joseph Chimenti et al., Appellants, v Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 165]

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to a certain insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunn, J.), dated May 27, 1997, which, *inter alia,*declared that the defendant had no duty to defend or indemnify them under the policy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“An insured’s good faith belief in nonliability, when reasonable under the circumstances, may excuse a delay in notifying his [or her] insurer of an accident” *(Argentina v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*207 AD2d 816, *affd*86 NY2d 748). We agree with *535the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs’ delay of two and one-third years in notifying the defendant insurance carrier of the underlying accident was not reasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiffs’ claim that they did not believe, at an earlier time, that they would be subject to liability, does not constitute a reasonable excuse for their delay. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 623

To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. STUMP (for himself, Mr. MONTGOMERY, and Mr. SOLOMON) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

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

3 That section 5 of the Act of May 28, 1936 (36 U.S.C.

4 115), is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘SEC. 5. A person may not be a member of the cor6 poration created by this Act unless that person—

7 ‘‘(1) served honorably as a member of the

8 Armed Forces of the United States in a foreign war,

9 insurrection, or expedition, which service has been

10 recognized as campaign-medal service and is gov11 erned by the authorization of the award of a cam-
2

•HR 623 IH

1 paign badge by the Government of the United

2 States; or

3 ‘‘(2) while a member of the Armed Forces of

4 the United States, served honorably on the Korean

5 peninsula or in its territorial waters for not less than

6 30 consecutive days, or a total of 60 days, after

7 June 30, 1949.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1662

JOSE ALEXANDER ORTIZ URRUTIA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A41-712-565)

Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay S. Marks, MARKS & KATZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*We find that Urrutia has failed to demonstrate sufficient

grounds to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. See Harris v.

Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jose Alexander Ortiz Urrutia, a native and citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have

reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the

ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

(2005) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a

motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)

(setting forth standard of review).*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2

DSP GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of DSP Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dror Levy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been,
and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 16, 2011

/s/ Dror LevyDror Levy Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit (11) - Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share and
                  Pro Forma Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Year Ended September 30,
                                                       2000           1999           1998
                                              --------------  ------------- -------------
   <S>                                        <C>             <C>           <C>
   Average number of shares outstanding          12,183,022      8,976,640      8,307,342
                                              ============== =============  =============
   Net loss                                   $  (5,906,000) $ (10,582,000) $ (10,404,000)

   Less:  cumulative dividend on
     redeemable preferred stock               $     (29,000)  $   (805,000) $    (895,000)
                                              --------------  ------------- -------------
   Loss applicable to common shares           $  (5,935,000) $ (11,387,000) $ (11,299,000)
                                              ==============  ============= ==============

   Net loss per share                         $       (0.49)  $      (1.27) $       (1.36)
                                              ==============  ============= ==============
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE
YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1


<S>                                     <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        2740
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               420893
<ALLOWANCES>                                 45000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            423703
<PP&E>                                     1240144
<DEPRECIATION>                              962612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              812307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4740874
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   5044582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               (10723459)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                812307
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3460351
<CGS>                                      2745733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2745733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2892067
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          553131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2730580)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (2731380)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (2731380)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.23)



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20853

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCUS LYNN JOHNS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-574-1

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

January 16, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court-appointed counsel for Marcus Lynn Johns has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Johns has received a copy of counsel’s motion and briefs, but he

has not filed a response. Our review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
No. 01-20853

-2-

further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 21

                              ATOMIC BURRITO, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                               DECEMBER 31, 1998


        1.      Western Country Club 1, Ltd.                      80% Owned

        2.      Entertainment Wichita, Inc.                      100% Owned

        3.      In Cahoots, Ltd.                                  80% Owned

        4.      Western Newco, Inc.                              100% Owned

        5.      Atomic Development, Inc.                         100% Owned

        6.      AB of Tulsa-I, L.L.C.                             57% Owned

        7.      AB of Wichita-I, L.L.C.                           60% Owned

        8.      AB of Houston-I, L.L.C.                           50% Owned

        9.      AB of OKC-I, L.L.C.                              100% Owned

       10.      AB of Norman, L.L.C.                             100% Owned
#### REINER v. POTTER.

No. 13370.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 19, 1931.

Mas Sehaumburger, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Ohas. V. Gonzales and James O’Connor, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

The plaintiff in this ease, Morris Reiner, alleging the defendant, William J. Potter, to be indebted to him in the sum of $903.78, caused a writ of attachment to issue, and garnished certain funds in the hands of the Jefferson Parish Fair, Inc.

There was judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit and dissolving the writ of attachment. Plaintiff has appealed.

Reiner conducts a loan office in the city of New Orleans, and Potter is either the owner or trainer of race horses which, at the time that this claim is said to have origi-. nated, were running’ at the Jefferson Race Track. An agreement was entered into by virtue of which Potter would supply Reiner with certain information, or tigs, on horses trained by him and Reiner- would bet a certain amount for himself and a certain amount for defendant, advancing the money for both bets. When the horses- won, as they sometimes did, the winnings would be divided on a pro rata basis and, when the horses lost, as they frequently did, a check would be given by Reiner to cover the amount of the losing bets.

There is no dispute concerning this ar- ’ rangement, except that plaintiff claims that defendant had often asked that a larger sum be wagered for his account than the agreement called for, and it is for these alleged additional advances that plaintiff claims a balance due him in the sum of $700.

On the record before us we are unable to say that there is any amount due Reiner on account of their horse racing venture. No account appears to have been kept by either party, and each claims a balance in his favor. Certainly the evidence does not preponderate in plaintiff’s favor.

The balance claimed, $203.78, is said to represent the value of a trunk sold to Potter by Reiner. Potter says that this trunk together with a watch was given to him as part payment of his share of a large and successful bet collected by Reiner. This statement is vigorously denied by Reiner, who insists that he sold the trunk to defendant, who purchased it for account of his wife. It appears, however, that after‘the alleged purchase and sale of the trunk Reiner continued to pay off winning bets without deducting the price of the trunk and on one occasion paid him in that way as much as $500 without asking.or reserving payment for the trunk. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that plaintiff has also failed to establish his claim for this item.

Our conclusion is that the judgment of the trial court is correct; consequently and for the reasons herein assigned thp judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18879]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Tree Care Industry Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 14, 2008, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 5 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Tree Care Industry Association 
(``TCIA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Acts provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, TCIA recently finalized and adopted: (a) 
ANSI A300 (Part 1)--2008 Pruning for Tree Care Operations--Tree, Shrub, 
and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Pruning); (b) ANSI 
A300 (Part 3)--2006 Supplemental Support Systems for Tree Care 
Operations--Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance--Standard 
Practices (Supplemental Support Systems); (c) ANSI A300 (Part 4)--2008 
Lightning Protection Systems for Tree Care Operations--Tree, Shrub, and 
Other Woody Plant Management--Standard Practices (Lightning Protection 
Systems); (d) Accreditation Standards Draft 6 Version 2; (e) Green 
Industry Standards Dictionary; and (f) CTSP Policies and Procedures 
Draft 1 Version 2.
    On September 8, 2004, TCIA filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
October 4, 2004 (69 FR 59271).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 27, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 77061)

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-18879 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Ernest Blum, Appellant, v. George Hiltl, Respondent.

Judgement and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Y. Yoon,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

         (b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material respect, the financial condition and result of operations
              of the Company.



                                           /s/ John Y. Yoon
                                           -------------------------------------
Date: April 14, 2004                       John Y. Yoon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 623 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 623

         To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

Mr. Stump (for himself, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Solomon) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To amend the charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of the 
Act of May 28, 1936 (36 U.S.C. 115), is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 5. A person may not be a member of the corporation created 
by this Act unless that person--
            ``(1) served honorably as a member of the Armed Forces of 
        the United States in a foreign war, insurrection, or 
        expedition, which service has been recognized as campaign-medal 
        service and is governed by the authorization of the award of a 
        campaign badge by the Government of the United States; or
            ``(2) while a member of the Armed Forces of the United 
        States, served honorably on the Korean peninsula or in its 
        territorial waters for not less than 30 consecutive days, or a 
        total of 60 days, after June 30, 1949.''.
                                 <all>
```