alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ZAVALA-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50002.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Manuel Zavala-Zavala appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zavala contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Zavala maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Zavala acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review,

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi*530 U.S. at 489-90, *426120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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 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 of Orient Paper, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.



A signed original 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.



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|                      |     |                                                                   
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 29, 2010 | By: | /s/Zhenyong Liu                                                   
|                      |     | Zhenyong Liu
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FOR THE 21-WEEKS ENDED JUNE 26, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        986,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,006,804
<CGS>                                          781,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  781,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               388,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (185,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (60)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (185,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (654,928)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   469,706
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000813

27-JUN-2014

08:49 AM
CIGNA Corporation Exhibit 10.6




Exhibit
10.6







Description
of Severance Benefits for Executives in 

Non-Change
of Control Circumstances







Severance
benefits may be provided to executive level employees whose employment is
terminated because of job elimination or any other reason. The amount of these
benefits is subject to the discretion of the CEO (and, in the case of senior
executives, the People Resources Committee). The following factors are typically
considered in the exercise of such discretion: length of service; the
executive’s total compensation target and the executive’s career plans following
termination of employment with CIGNA.
February 15, 1996




Citicorp
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York  10043

Dear Sirs:

I am an Associate  General  Counsel of Citibank,  N.A. and as such have acted as
counsel for Citicorp in connection with the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8
(the  "Registration  Statement") to be filed by Citicorp with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof for the purpose of registering under the
Securities  Act of 1933,  as  amended  (the  "Act"),  $100,000,000  of  deferred
compensation  obligations  (the  "Obligations")  which will represent  unsecured
obligations of Citicorp to pay deferred compensation in the future in accordance
with the terms of the  Citicorp  Deferred  Compensation  Plan (the  "Plan").  In
connection  therewith I have examined such corporate  records,  certificates and
other  documents  and  reviewed  such  questions  of law  as I  have  considered
necessary or appropriate for the purpose of this opinion.

On the basis of such  examination  and review,  I advise you that, in my opinion
that, when issued in the manner  provided in the Plan, the  Obligations  will be
valid and binding  obligations  of  Citicorp,  enforceable  against  Citicorp in
accordance  with their terms,  except as the same may be limited by  bankruptcy,
insolvency,  reorganization  or other  similar laws relating to or affecting the
enforcement of creditors' rights generally and by general principles of equity.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.  In giving  this  consent,  I do not  thereby  admit that I am in the
category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Stephen E. Dietz
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00206

- CR

Michael Donte Dunn

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1436656D)

August 23, 2018

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the recor d on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to

reflect that Dunn was convicted of “attempted sexual assault

. ” It is ordered that

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as mo dified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

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

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

March 14, 2008

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

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

March 14, 2008
Order filed, July 30, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00098-CR

____________

JUAN TORRES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1338600

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due July 15, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Edna Thornton, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### HAGAN v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORPORATION.

No. 2686.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 5, 1945.

Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Booth & Lockard, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

In his application for rehearing, plaintiff claims that we have erred in two particulars, viz.:

> “I. The court erred in not taking into account and considering the salient issue made by this record, by Appellate’s (Appel-lee’s) brief that Appellant (appellee) was an ordinary, common carpenter and should not be gauged or judged by what a few exceptional men can do, found after combing one-fourth of the State.

> “II. The- court erred in not taking into account that there is an almost universal prejudice in the building industry against and makes it practically impossible for Appellant (appellee) to get a job because of the loss of one of his eyes.”

Our answer to the plaintiff is that our opinion clearly shows that we considered him as “an ordinary and common carpenter”, in which duties as such he was not required to have precise vision, and did not gauge or judge him by what a few exceptional men could do, but only gauged or judged him in the light of what a “common” carpenter could do. By that we mean, if in twenty years of experience in the carpentry trade, he had only learned the art of sawing a board, and the nailing thereof, the roofing of houses, under the evidence in the record, he could still perform his regular work with his remaining eye in which he has perfect vision.

As to plaintiff’s second contention, we only say that this record is barren of any evidence which would tend to show any prejudice in the .building industry against any one-eyed common carpenter, and to show that such a one-eyed carpenter could not get a job because of the loss of one of his eyes. As previously stated in our opinion, one of plaintiff’s own witnesses testified that a carpenter of plaintiff’s class had had employment at Camp Polk, near Lees-ville, within the sphere of plaintiff’s employment, and had done satisfactory work.

Rehearing refused.
Exhibit 10.7

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

TO THE

REWARDS NETWORK INC.

2010 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

WHEREAS, Rewards Network Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation), has heretofore adopted and maintains the Rewards Network Inc. 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan (the Plan);
and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has retained the power to amend the Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date hereof, as
follows:

1. The first sentence under the heading General Terms and Conditions is hereby amended by inserting the
phrase as the same may be amended from time to time, immediately after the word Plan where it appears therein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent on this 16th day of August, 2010.



REWARDS NETWORK INC.By:    /s/ Ronald L. BlakeName: Ronald L. BlakeTitle: President and CEO
Exhibit 3.1
 PAGE 1
 (DELAWARE LOGO)
 I, HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED ARE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS FILED FROM
AND INCLUDING THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OR A MERGER WITH A RESTATED CERTIFICATE
ATTACHED OF VIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC CORPORATION AS RECEIVED AND FILED IN THIS OFFICE.
 THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED:
 RESTATED CERTIFICATE, FILED THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, A.D. 2007, AT 1:01
OCLOCK P.M.




---



##### 



State of DelawareSecretary of StateDivision of CorporationsDelivered 01:01 PM 11/20/2007FILED 01:01 PM 11/20/2007SRV 071242434  3963071 FILE
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 VIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC CORPORATION




---



##### 



ARTICLE I
 Corporation
  ARTICLE II
  ARTICLE III
 DGCL
 ARTICLE IV
 Common
Stock Preferred
Stock
 Effective Time
 Board of
Directors
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Dividends.
 Liquidation Rights.
 Voting.
 ARTICLE V
 Management by Board of Directors.
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Staggered Board of Directors.
 Removal of Directors. Cause
 - 4 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
  ARTICLE VII
   - 5 -




---



##### 



provided, however,
   - 6 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
  [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
 - 7 -




---



##### 



VIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ GEORGE H. FRISCHName:
    George H. FrischTitle:
    General Counsel and Secretary - 8 -
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Rhodes, 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6523.]

1 

THE STATE EX REL. BROWN, APPELLANT, v. RHODES, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Rhodes, 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6523.] 

Public records — Mandamus sought to compel respondent to release public 

records to inmate — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority 

of State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton. 

(No. 2006-1549 — Submitted November 14, 2006 — Decided 

December 27, 2006.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, 

No. 5-05-25, 2006-Ohio-3394. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I 

and III. 

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority 

of State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 

N.E.2d 966. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL

and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

 Frank C. Brown Jr., pro se. 

______________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. CP08-460-000] 

                    Take notice that on August 13, 2008, the Indicated Shippers (ConocoPhillips Company, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., and Yates Petroleum Corporation) filed a petition for immediate injunctive relief and an expedited technical conference. The Indicated Shippers request the Commission to enjoin Rockies Express                           ( print page 51295)                        Pipeline LLC from engaging in hydrostatic testing on a portion of its pipeline beginning September 3, 2008, and anticipated to end September 26, 2008.                 

                    The petition is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This petition is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.                 

                    Any person desiring to intervene in this proceeding or to be heard in response to the petition must file in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure by the date designated below. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (                    *http://www.ferc.gov*) under the “e-Filing”  link.                 

*Comment Date:*                     August 20, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-20211 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Dennis L. Winger   
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 8, 2008
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Rhodes , 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6523.]

1 T HE S TATE EX REL . B ROWN , A PPELLANT , v . R HODES , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Rhodes , 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6523.] Public records — Mandamus sought to compel respondent to release public records to inmate — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton. (No. 2006-1549

— Submitted November 14, 2006

— Decided December 27, 2006.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, No. 5-05-25, 2006-Ohio-3394.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I and III. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton , 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966. M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL and L ANZINGER , JJ., concur. P FEIFER , J., dissents.

__________________ Frank C. Brown Jr., pro se.

______________________