alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10494 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Oscar Daniel Rios Benitez,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 1

- 1

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Oscar Daniel Rios Benitez appeals his 18

- month, within

- guidelines sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Rios Benitez asserts that the district court plainly erred by characterizing his prior Texas conviction for assault

- family violence under **Tex. Penal Code Ann**

. § 22.01 (a)(1),

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has de termined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10494 Document: 00515700577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2021No. 20

- 10494

2 (b)(2) as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 and, thus, as an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He contends that Texas assault

- family violence does not qualify as an aggravated felony because it can be commi tted recklessly. The Government moves for summary affirmance, a sserting that Rio s Benitez ’ s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gracia

- Cantu , 920 F.3d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 14 0 S. Ct. 157 (2019)

. As Rios Benitez correctly concedes , his ar gument i s foreclosed

. See Gracia

- Cantu , 920 F.3d at 253

– 55 (holding that assault causing bodily injury under **Tex. Penal Code Ann** . § 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2) is a crime of violence under § 16(a))

. He raises the issue only to preserve it for future review. Consequently, the Government is “ clearly right as a matter of law , ” such that “ there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the

case. ” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government ’ s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. The Government ’ s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED AS MOOT** 

. Case: 20-10494 Document: 00515700577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 OF PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         311,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    461,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,631,400
<PP&E>                                       8,773,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,774,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,127,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,317,900
<BONDS>                                      2,173,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       492,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,768,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,127,000
<SALES>                                      1,119,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,119,700
<CGS>                                          873,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  873,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               134,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-7 (the "Exchange Act
     periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
     fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
     material respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer, PHH Mortgage
     Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer
     and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Securities Administrator.

     Dated:  June 30, 2008

     /s/ Michelle Gill
     Michelle Gill, Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### JACKSON v. JORDAN & RAWLS et al.

No. 1538.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1936.

Pujo, Bell & Hardin, of Lake Charles, for appellants.

S. I. Foster, of Leesville, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff, Thomas A. Jackson, against the defendants, Jordan & Rawls and their insurer, T. H. Mastin & Co., claiming that on December 26, 1934, while in the employ of defendant Jordan & Rawls, he suffered a hernia. Defendants denied the existence of the hernia and claim that plaintiff has recovered from whatever slight injury he suffered, while in defendant’s employ.

The case was tried and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which defendants have appealed.

As is usual in such cases, there is no testimony in the record save from plaintiff’s side to the effect that he was injured while lifting a heavy board, 4x12x18, used in repairing a bridge, over which the defendants transported logs.' Plaintiff himself sets out in detail the manner in which he was hurt and the pain he felt. He is partly corroborated by a man named Dennis Moore, however not a fellow employee, and another witness, Ward Johnson, one of the track drivers for defendants. Unless we totally disbelieve the plaintiff and these witnesses, we are bound to conclude that he received an injury of some kind, and an injury received by heavy lifting is a hernia. The district judge believed the plaintiff and his witnesses, and there’ is no reason we can see why we should not do likewise.

The serious point that is in dispute is with regard to the effect of the injury. There is enough conflict in the medical testimony to arouse some suspicion, and the regrettable part of it is that the testimony of some of the doctors seems to be of a doubtful nature. But, taking into consideration the fact that this man was injured; that he consulted a physician that same *339day who found symptoms of hernia and directed a treatment therefor; that -he was placed on compensation for four weeks; and there is some substantial testimony to the effect that he has an incomplete, if not a complete, hernia; and, finally, the fact that this is a compensation suit in which everything- has to be construed liberally in favor of the employee, and that plaintiff comes with a judgment of the district court in his favor — we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

The question as to whether or not the hernia is of traumatic or congenital origin is solved by the preponderance of the evidence, together with the medical testimony in relation thereto, to be in favor of traumatic origin.

The evidence in the case sustains the judgment of the trial judge, and we cannot see where his judgment is manifestly erroneous.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
----

----

| CHYRON CORPORATION                                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)                         |
|                                                                     |
| (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |

|   | (1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | Aggregate Number of securities to which transaction applies:                                                                                                                                      |
|   | (3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|   | (4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | (5) | Total fee paid:                                                                                                                                                                                   |

|   | (1) | Amount Previously Paid:                       |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|   | (3) | Filing Party:                                 |

----

----

----

----

----

----
EXHIBIT 32

# Certification Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Nature Vision, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                     |                                                                                     |                         |  |  | 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date:   May 19, 2005 |                                                                                     | /s/   Jeffrey P. Zernov
|                     |                                                                                    
|                     | Jeffrey P. ZernovChief Executive Officer and President(principal executive officer) |                        
|                    
|                    
|Date:   May 19, 2005 |                                                                                     | /s/   Michael R. Day   
|                     |                                                                                    
|                     | Michael R. DayChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)                  |                        

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Nature Vision, Inc. and will be retained by Nature Vision, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EHXIBIT 23.3



The Board of Directors
Citigroup Inc.:

As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference  in the  Form  S-8  Registration  Statement  of  Citigroup  Inc.  (the
"Registration  Statement"),  of our report dated March 13, 1997, relating to the
consolidated  statements of financial  condition of Salomon Inc and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income,  changes  in  stockholders'  equity and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended  December 31, 1996,  which report is  incorporated  by
reference  or  included  in the  annual  report on Form  10-K,  as  amended,  of
Citigroup Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

New York, New York
January 18, 2000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Chigozie IWUOHA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21095.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

*385Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Christopher Iwuoha appeals his sentence for his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the country after having been deported following an aggravated felony conviction. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1826(b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Iwuoha argues: (1) he received two criminal history points based upon an erroneous finding that he committed his instant offense while he was serving a supervised release term for his prior drug conviction, and (2) 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

The record reveals that Iwuoha committed the instant offense while a warrant for his violation of his supervised release terms was pending. The addition of two criminal history points was not plain error. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d); § 4A1.1, comment. (n.4); *United States v. Anderson,*184 F.3d 479, 480-81 (5th Cir.1999).

As conceded by Iwuoha, his challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which was not overruled by *Apprendi. See United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT
32.1.


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Neil
Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Ultra Sun
Corp. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-Q
for the period December 31, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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
Registrant.





Dated:  May
4,
2009             By:  /s/ Neil
Blosch


Neil
Blosch


Chief
Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Ultra Sun Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Sun Corp. and
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00122

- CV

Alberto's Produce LLC

v. Maxim Production Co. Inc.

On Appeal from the 329th District Court of Wharton County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 46,918

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against
appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 14, 2014
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Exhibit 12

               COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
                        (Unaudited; dollars in millions)

                                                       June 30,      December 31,
                                                         1999            1998
                                                       --------        --------
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>
Short-term debt ................................       $  214.1      $    116.1
Current portion of long-term debt ..............           61.9            68.5
Long-term debt .................................          801.7           836.4
                                                       --------        --------

    Total debt .................................        1,077.7         1,021.0
Minority interests in subsidiaries .............           86.2            93.3
Common shareholders' equity ....................        2,373.4         2,587.4
                                                       --------        --------

    Total capitalization .......................       $3,537.3        $3,701.7
                                                       ========        ========


Ratio of total debt to total capitalization ....           30.5%           27.6%
                                                       ========        ========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent
Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: March 28, 2012 |                            
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     |                            
|                     | /s/ Eugene Malobrodsky     
|                     |                            
|                     | Eugene Malobrodsky         
|                     | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 617 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging veterans 

copayments for preventive services relating to COVID–19. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Ms. UNDERWOOD (for herself, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. ZELDIN, and Mr. 

FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging 

veterans copayments for preventive services relating to 

COVID–19. 

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 ‘‘No Coronavirus 

5 Copays for Veterans Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 617 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COPAYMENTS AND COST SHARING 

2 FOR VETERANS RECEIVING PREVENTIVE 

3 SERVICES RELATING TO COVID–19. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of Veterans Af5 fairs may not require any copayment or other cost sharing 

6 under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, for 

7 qualifying coronavirus preventive services. The require8 ment described in this subsection shall take effect with 

9 respect to a qualifying coronavirus preventive service on 

10 the specified date. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘quali12 fying coronavirus preventive service’’ and ‘‘specified date’’ 

13 have the meaning given those terms in section 3203 of 

14 the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS