alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41083 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTURO GUITIERREZ-TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-987-1

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arturo Gutierrez-Tovar (Gutierrez) appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported. As Gutierrez acknowledges, his challenge to the district court’s eight-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Rivera , 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.No. 05-41083 -2- 2001). Gutierrez cites no authority affecting the binding precedential value of Rivera and Hinojosa-Lopez. Gutierrez also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Gutierrez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Gutierrez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Gutierrez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.No. 05-41083 -3-
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):  November 23, 2011





Frontier Communications Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





001-11001
06-0619596(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut
06905(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)





(203) 614-5600


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





_________________


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):





o    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c))





Item 8.01
Other Events




The information set forth in the press release issued by Frontier Communications Corporation on November 23, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, is incorporated herein by reference.




Item 9.01
Financial Statements and Exhibits




(d)           Exhibits




99.1
Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on November 23, 2011.












SIGNATURES







Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.










FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONDate:  November 23, 2011
By:/s/ Nancy S. RightsNancy S. RightsSenior Vice President,

Deputy General Counsel and Secretary
#### HOWARD v. COHEN et al.

No. 16095.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 21, 1935.

John A. Woodville, of New Orleans, for Howard.

Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, of New Orleans, for Cohen and others.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for physical injuries sustained by a tenant and brought against the owners of the rented property in which it is alleged that the tenant’s injuries were due to defects in the leased premises. The amount claimed in the petition is $2,650.

There was an admission of liability on the part of the defendants and the sole issue in the case, which was tried before a jury, was the question of the amount of damages due plaintiff as a result of her injuries. The jury awarded her $450, and, from a judgment based upon the verdict of the jury, both parties have appealed to this court.

Plaintiff, a young negress 23 years of age, alleges that on the 13th of June, 1934, while she was walking on the back porch of the defendants’ premises, it gave way under her weight, causing her to fall through the floor, as a result of which she sustained “a- possible fracture of the spine, a sprained back, general contusions to her body, and a sprained right shoulder and arm; also a severe nervous shock.” She testified that her injuries were very painful; that she was confined to her bed for 23 days, after having had her back strapped with adhesive tape at the Charity Hospital. Previous to her injuries she had been employed as a night maid at the Charity Hospital. She was. attended by Dr. Julian Lombard, who rendered a bill for his services in the sum of $150. Dr. Lombard described her injuries as serious and painful, and stated that at the time of the trial, February 13, 1935, she had not .recovered and still had fever, complained of pain in the legs and back, and was unable to resume her occupation.

Dr. Edward S. Hatch, Dr. J. C. Rodick, and Dr. Nathan H. Polmer examined plaintiff on behalf of defendants, the latter being the husband of one of the defendants. They caused X-rays to be made of her back, but no evidence of injury to her *676spine, or any reason for partial disability, was discovered. All of the physicians, Dr. Lombard included, are agreed that there was no fracture of the spine.

The bill rendered plaintiff by Dr. Lombard appears to have included medical services in the treatment of plaintiff unrelated to the injuries she received as a result of the accident. For example, on one occasion, he treated her for cervicitis, or an inflammation of the neck of the womb, which ailment, admittedly, had no connection with the accident.

In view of the medical testimony, we are of opinion that plaintiff’s injuries were not of a serious nature, but she must have suffered pain and inconvenience and was put to some expense for medical treatment. We believe the award of the jury was substantially correct, and that it shoúld not be disturbed.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
10.1


 


 


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Prior Base Salary

  	
   

  	
  Approved Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Caren L. Mason

  President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  415,000.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  425,000.00

  	
   

  
	
  Mark E. Paiz

  Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  310,000.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  320,000.00

  	
   

  
	
  Paul E. Landers

  Senior Vice President,

  Finance & Administration,

  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  254,560.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  265,000.00

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas J. Foley

  Chief Technology Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  250,000.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  254,000.00
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-19-1998
<CASH>                                            1080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    26613
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      33570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 63420
<PP&E>                                           90765
<DEPRECIATION>                                   56715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   98721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12488
<BONDS>                                          24898
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5286
<OTHER-SE>                                       49677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     98721
<SALES>                                          75578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 75578
<CGS>                                            60720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    71448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3356
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 10, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-15000

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00150-CR-T-E

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENJAMIN SHANE FOSTER,

a.k.a. Benjamin Shawn Foster,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(June 10, 2009)

Before BIRCH, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Carlton Taylor, appointed counsel for Benjamin Shane Foster in this
direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Foster’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
#### Photo Medic Equipment, Inc., Doing Business as Precise Optics, Appellant, v Vijay Alreja, Respondent.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s appeal is from that portion of a pretrial discovery order directing it to produce the income tax returns of its profit-sharing plan, a list of employee partici*921pants and nonparticipants in the plan, and the names and addresses of those persons authorized to sign checks, all for the years 1983 through 1987. Plaintiff, in moving to vacate certain discovery demands, did not seek relief from demands that it produce income tax returns for its profit-sharing plan and conceded that those returns were relevant and necessary to the preparation of defendant’s case. Under the circumstances, plaintiff is precluded from taking a contrary position on appeal. There is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that the names and addresses of participants and nonparticipants in the plan are irrelevant and that production of that information would be no more than an annoyance.

We conclude, however, that defendant has failed to establish any relevance to, or need for, the names of those persons authorized to sign checks. Plaintiff seeks to recover the sums of money paid to defendant on expense vouchers defendant submitted for alleged unreimbursable expenses. Plaintiff has agreed to produce the names of its employees authorized to approve reimbursements. The issues in this case relate to the propriety of the expense reimbursement claims; no issue has been raised concerning the checks themselves. Accordingly, we modify the order to delete the direction concerning persons authorized to sign checks. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Underwood, Jr., J.—discovery.) Present —Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, J j.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-148-01-PB

Paul D. Berube

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and negotiate a plea agreement or properly

prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial from October

4, 2005 to January 4, 2006. In agreeing to continue the trial,

the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for

the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in granting

a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00148-PB Document 14 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 27, 2005 final pretrial conference is

continued until December 20, 2005 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 19, 2005

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00148-PB Document 14 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         883,328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,015,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                   242,692
<INVENTORY>                                  6,304,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,918,680
<PP&E>                                      34,984,679
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,622,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,280,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,905,985
<BONDS>                                     11,004,963
<COMMON>                                        67,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,301,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,280,434
<SALES>                                     12,782,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,782,357
<CGS>                                       10,507,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,206,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             217,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                381,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                   145,821
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            235,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   235,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2103]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 7, 2008. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Personal Financial Statement
    No: 413
    Frequency: On occasion
    Description of Respondents: Applicants for SBA Loan
    Responses: 148,788
    Annual Burden: 223,182
    Title: Secondary Participation Guaranty Agreement
    No's: 1502, 1086
    Frequency: On occasion
    Description of Respondents: SBA Participating Lenders
    Responses: 14,000
    Annual Burden: 42,000

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
 [FR Doc. E8-2103 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition for Princeton Mining Company at June 30,
1997 (unaudited) and the Statement of Income for the six months ended June
30, 1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    11
<PP&E>                                          70,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          313,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       300,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (543,921)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.002)










</TABLE>
#### Hulbert *v.*City of Portsmouth.

(No. 24304

Decided November 22, 1933.)

*Messrs. Kimble & Kimble,*for plaintiff in error.

*412
      *Mr. W. L. Dickey,*director of law, and *Mr. A. G. Schapiro,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, Cb J., Stephenson, Jones, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

QUADIR SHAHIDD TAYLOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 15 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF

THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Blake, President and 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

May 6, 2010



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/S/    RONALD L.
BLAKE                               
|Ronald L. Blake
President and Chief Executive Officer



26