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

No. 20

- 50757 **consolidated with** No. 20

- 50775 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Melquiades Galvez** 

**- Martinez,** 

Defendant

- Appellant

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

- CR

- 13

- 1 USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 56

- 1

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

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 25, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50757 Document: 00515756943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2021No. 20

- 50757 c/w No. 20

- 50775

2 **Per Curiam :**  * Melquiades Galvez

- Martinez appeals his within

- guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release relat ed to his prior conviction for transportation of illegal aliens for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(i). Raising one issue on appeal, Galvez

- Martinez argues that his illegal reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326( b)(2), violates his due process rights by exceeding the two

- year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) because the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(2) enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226

– 27 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion fo r an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Galvez

- Martinez concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

– 26 (5th Cir. 2007). S ummary affirmance is therefore appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the appeals of Galvez

- Martinez’s illegal reentry conviction and supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ul**  **e** 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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. Case: 20-50757 Document: 00515756943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2021No. 20

- 50757 c/w No. 20

- 50775

3 revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgments of the district court are **AFFIRMED.** The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED AS MOOT** 

. Case: 20-50757 Document: 00515756943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2021
Ex. 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
EduLink,  Inc.  ("EduLink"),  that, to his  knowledge,  the Quarterly  Report of
EduLink on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005,  fully  complies  with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information  contained in such report fairly presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operation of EduLink.  This
written  statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed  original of this  statement  has been
provided  to EduLink  and will be  retained  by  EduLink  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: November 1, 2006               By:  /s/ Aleksandr Shvarts
                                        ---------------------------

                                        ALEKSANDR SHVARTS
                                        Chief Executive Officer

   Date: November 1, 2006               By:  /s/ Gennady Pomeranets
                                        ----------------------------

                                        GENNADY POMERANETS, CPA

                                        Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1318 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1318

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
          relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

  Mr. Pitts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
          relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Kazakhstan has been found to be in full compliance with 
        the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the 
        Trade Act of 1974.
            (2) Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, 
        Kazakhstan has made progress toward creating a free-market 
        economy system.
            (3) Kazakhstan concluded a bilateral investment treaty with 
        the United States in 1992.
            (4) Kazakhstan has demonstrated a strong desire to build a 
        friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States.
            (5) The extension of unconditional normal trade relations 
        treatment to the products of Kazakhstan will enable the United 
        States to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade 
        Organization with respect to Kazakhstan.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 
              TO KAZAKHSTAN.

    (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of Nondiscriminatory 
Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision of title IV of the Trade Act 
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may--
            (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
        Kazakhstan; and
            (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
        respect to Kazakhstan, proclaim the extension of 
        nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) 
        to the products of that country.
    (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after the 
effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) of 
nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Kazakhstan, title IV of 
the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to that country.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Jeter, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered June 20, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision that the term of imprisonment imposed on the criminal possession count is to run consecutively to the terms of imprisonment imposed on the murder counts, and substituting therefor a provision that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction stems from the murder of a New York City Transit Police Officer. The defendant urges on appeal that he was denied a fair trial due to the trial court’s refusal to hold a hearing regarding the admissibility of certain spectrographic voice evidence. Although we agree that a hearing should have been conducted in this regard, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt the error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). The testimony of several eyewitnesses established the defendant’s involvement in the so-called "chain snatching” event which precipitated the police officer’s death. The defendant was observed "hovering” over the officer’s body immediately after her death. In addition, the murder weapon was subsequently discovered in the defendant’s bedroom. These factors, coupled with the court’s limiting instructions to the jurors that they were free to disregard any expert testimony with respect to the spectrographic voice evidence, leads us to the conclusion that any error in failing to conduct the requested hearing is harmless inasmuch as there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the error not occurred *(see, People v Crimmins, supra).*

*422The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel is without merit. The conduct complained of constitutes nothing more than the unsuccessful employment of trial strategies, which will not be second guessed by an appellate court *(see, People v Sullivan,*153 AD2d 223; *see also, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705; *People v McMillan,*111 AD2d 934).

As conceded by the People, the sentence imposed upon the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree may not run consecutively to the other sentences imposed *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25; *People v Wachtel,*124 AD2d 613), and the sentence is modified accordingly.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Bellamy,*160. AD2d 886; *People v Tubwell,*45 AD2d 749). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6614

In Re: JOSE JUAN RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-900-2)

Submitted: July 8, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Juan Rodriguez, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Juan Rodriguez petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks

an order to compel the district court to grant a certificate of

appealability or to explain its reasons for failing to do so.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

We grant Rodriguez leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

deny the petition for writ of mandamus, as Rodriquez is not

entitled to the relief sought. 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
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1785-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated August 24, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATE: Effective Date: September 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 24, 2008.

Baker, Collier, Glades, Jefferson, Lake, Marion, and Nassau Counties 
for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public 
Assistance).
Orange and Polk Counties for Individual Assistance.
Manatee and Sarasota Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21969 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
181 La. 73

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Gen SAKOVANT.

No. 33026.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1935.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant. •

E. M. Robbei’t, City Atty., and W. Som-mer Benedict, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for distributing circulars without a permit, in violation of Ordinance No. 8080, C. C. S., of the city of New Orleans.

The same proceedings from the inception of the trial to the entry of the order of appeal were had in this case as were had in City of New Orleans v. Charles Ford (La. Sup.) 158 So. 624, this day decided.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in said ease, the appeal herein is dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-110-01-PB

Joshua Meier

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant has violated his bail by failing to

attend some counseling sessions, by using marijuana and most

recently by using cocaine. He has a drug problem and has been

given prior chances. He admits the violations. Given the number

of failed opportunities to comply with conditions I find that the

defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of

conditions. The conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:05-cr-00110-SM Document 14 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 5, 2005 

cc: Donald A. Feith, AUSA

 Lincoln T. Soldati, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00110-SM Document 14 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                     LIFESTYLE INNOVATIONS, INC FORM 10-QSB
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Johnson, certify that

1.   I am the Acting Chief Executive Officer and principal accounting officer of
     Lifestyle Innovations, Inc.

2.   Attached to this certification is Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
     September 30, 2005, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the
     issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
     which contains condensed consolidated financial statements.

3.   I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
     to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

     o    The periodic report containing the condensed consolidated financial
          statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

     o    The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of
          operations of the issuer for the periods presented.

December 12, 2005                            /s/ Paul Johnson
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Paul Johnson
                                             President, Acting CEO
                                             (and equivalent of CFO)


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

This certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
Presidential Documents

54285 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 182 

Thursday, September 18, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2008–25 of August 28, 2008 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Emergency Fund Drawdown to Assist Georgian Victims of Conflict 

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the 

United States, including sections 2 and 4(a)(1) of the Migration and Refugee 

Assistance Act of 1962 (the ‘‘Act’’), as amended, (22 U.S.C. 2601 and 2603) 

and section 301 of title 3, United States Code: 

(1) I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is 

important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act, in 

an amount not to exceed $5.75 million from the United States Emergency 

Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions 

to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, 

and Migration of the Department of State, related to the humanitarian needs 

of conflict victims and those displaced by recent violence in Georgia. 

(2) I hereby assign to you the functions of the President in relation to 

this memorandum under section 2(d) of the Act, and of establishing terms 

and conditions under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and you may further assign 

such functions to your subordinates, consistent with applicable law. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register . 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 28, 2008 

[FR Doc. E8–21975 

Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID PUZIO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3034

[August 11, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 94-

12537CF10A.

Ashley D. Kay and Kevin J. Kulik, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, 

Sr. Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

GERBER, J.

In Puzio v. State, 278 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Puzio I”), we 

concluded the trial court erred when resentencing the defendant under 

section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), because “no jury has 

found beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually killed, intended to kill, 

or attempted to kill the victims.” Id. at 85-86. We further held the error 

was harmful because “[t]he record does not demonstrate beyond a 

reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant 

killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim[s].” Id. at 86. 

However, rather than remanding for a de novo resentencing under section 

775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017), pursuant to Williams v. State, 242 

So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), we remanded for ministerial correction of the 

defendant’s sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. because, during the 

resentencing hearing, the trial court already had stated “it equally finds a 

sixty-year sentence appropriate under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) in light of 

the facts of this case,” thus conclusively showing the trial court would have 

imposed the same sentence. Id.
In Puzio v. State, No. SC19-1511, 2021 WL 2583946 (Fla. June 24, 

2021) (“Puzio II”), our supreme court quashed Puzio I and remanded to this 

court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a de novo 

resentencing as required by Williams. Puzio II, 2021 WL 2583946, at *1. 

Our supreme court reasoned that, despite the trial court’s statement, a 

ministerial correction of the defendant’s sentences under section 

775.082(1)(b)2. would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams

requires. Id.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a 

de novo resentencing as required by Williams on the first degree murder 

counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm 

on the defendant’s other arguments without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for de novo resentencing 

as instructed.

CONNER, C.J., and METZGER, ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

No further motions for rehearing shall be permitted.