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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM 

STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of 

ZYNEX, INC. f/k/a ZYNEX MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SANDGAARD,

FRITZ G. ALLISON,

TAYLOR SIMONTON, and

MARY BETH VITALE,

Defendants.

and

ZYNEX, INC., f/k/a ZYNEX MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Nominal Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR 

DEFENDANTS TAYLOR SIMONTON AND MARY BETH VITALE

This matter has come before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss Independent 

Director Defendants Taylor Simonton and Mary Beth Vitale (the “Motion to Dismiss”).

The Court, being fully advised, hereby GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that 

Independent Director Defendants Taylor Simonton and Mary Beth Vitale be dismissed from the 

above-captioned action without prejudice subject to Final Court Approval of the Settlement as 

described in the Motion to Dismiss (the “Dismissal”). 

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 71 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

The Court further ORDERS that this Dismissal will become a dismissal with prejudice 

upon Final Approval of the Settlement.

DATED: April 10, 2012

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

U.S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 71 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 50914 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **J Reyes -**  **Carrillo,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:22 - CR - 312 - 1

**______________________ ________**  Before **Stewart, Dennis,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** J Reyes - Carrillo appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50914 Document: 00516697275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023No. 22 - 50914

2 the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Reyes - Carrillo acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United Sta tes , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S . 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez - Torres . See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Reyes - Carrillo is, therefore, correct that his argument is foreclosed. Because his posit ion “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary disposition is proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, Reyes - Carrillo ’s motio n for summary disposition is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 22-50914 Document: 00516697275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 7, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00761

- CR

Ruben NERIO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

A ppellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005CR1231 The Honorable Angus K. McGinty, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s brief was originally due on February 26 , 2014

. Appellant is represented on appeal by appointed counsel, M r

. Mark E. Braswell

. Mr. Braswell has been granted one extension of time in which to file the brief, until March 26, 2014 . Neither the brief nor a motion

for extension of time has been filed.

It is therefore, ORDERED that M r

. Braswell shall file appellant ’ s brief in this court no later April 25, 2014

. No further extensions of time will be granted. If Mr. Braswell fails to file appellant’s brief b y April 25 , 201 4 , this cause will be abated for the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether: (1) appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (2) appellant is indigent, and if so, the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, which may include the appointment of new counsel; and (3) counsel has abandoned the appeal. Beca use sanctions may be necessary, the trial court will be

asked to address this issue even if new counsel is retained or substituted before the date of the hearing.

The C lerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on M r

. Braswell by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United State s mail.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,370
<PP&E>                                          14,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,222
<BONDS>                                         10,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,127
<COMMON>                                         7,665
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,566
<SALES>                                         26,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,031
<CGS>                                           27,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (542)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    763
<INCOME-TAX>                                       136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,937
<SECURITIES>                                     8,861
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (507)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,556
<PP&E>                                          19,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,884)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,776
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,525
<SALES>                                         61,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,615
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,632
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,455
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.53
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vance Bell, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 359]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Smith, J.), entered November 29, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [5]) and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court did not err in refusing to suppress the drugs found by the police on two occasions. In both instances, defendant threw the drugs to the ground while the police were in pursuit of defendant. The first pursuit was lawful, and defendant abandoned the drugs during that pursuit *(see People v Matienzo,*81 NY2d 778, 780). Even assuming, arguendo, that the second pursuit resulted from an illegal stop, we conclude that defendant’s act of discarding the drugs during the second pursuit “was not in direct and immediate response to the illegal [stop]” *(People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, 402, *cert denied*444 *837US 969), and “the police conduct, although illegal, neither provoked the defendant into revealing the evidence seized nor was designed to lead to the discovery of any evidence” *(id.*at 405). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence concerning the manner in which the drugs were packaged is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s intent to sell *(see People v Smith,*217 AD2d 910, 911). The drugs abandoned by defendant during the first pursuit consisted of 18 rocks of crack cocaine in small ziploc bags, and those discarded by defendant during the second pursuit consisted of 13 rocks of crack cocaine in small ziploc bags. We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The contention of defendant at trial that the drugs could have been for his personal use merely raised an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve *(see id.).*Defendant further contends that the court erred in permitting the People to use his postarrest statement in cross-examining him at trial in view of their pretrial stipulation not to use that statement at trial *(see People v White,*73 NY2d 468, 475-476, *cert denied*493 US 859). Even assuming, arguendo, that the pretrial stipulation was intended to encompass cross-examination of defendant, we nevertheless conclude that the error in permitting the People to use that statement in cross-examining defendant at trial is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see id.).*Defendant’s contention concerning prosecutorial misconduct on summation is unpreserved for our review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Kaufman,*288 AD2d 895, 896, *lv denied*97 NY2d 684) and in any event is lacking in merit. The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1
 Certificate
Pursuant to Section 906
 of
Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002
 CERTIFICATION
OF CEO
  In connection with the annual report on
Form 10-K/A of Bovie Medical Corporation. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the“Report”), the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer certifies, 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,
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 Company.
  Date:
November 6, 2009
  /s/Andrew
Makrides
 Andrew
Makrides
 President
and
 Chief Executive
Officer
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 Nos. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000] 

      ( print page 1874)    
On Tuesday, January 15, 2008, staff of the Office of Energy Projects will convene a technical conference regarding the proposed Sparrows Point Import Terminal and Pipeline Project. The technical conference will be held at the Commission Headquarters in Washington, DC, room 3M-3. 

The conference will be held in two sessions, morning and afternoon. The morning session will commence at 10 a.m. (EDT) and discuss issues related to Mid-Atlantic Express's proposal to construct some of its proposed pipeline in Baltimore Gas & Electric's right of way. The afternoon session will commence at 1 p.m. (EDT) and discuss liquefied natural gas (LNG) technical issues. 

                    The morning session is open to the public. Due to the nature of critical energy infrastructure information (CEII) and security issues to be explored discussing LNG issues, the afternoon session is not open to the public. Attendance to the afternoon session will be limited to existing parties to the above-referenced proceeding (anyone who has specifically requested to intervene as a party) and to representatives of interested federal, state, and local agencies. Any person planning to attend the January 15th technical conference must register by close of business on Monday, January 14, 2008. Registration may be submitted either online at                     *https://www.ferc.gov/​whats-new/​registration/​tech-conf-01-15-form.asp*                     or by faxing a copy of the form (found at the referenced online link) to 202-208-0353. Attendees to the afternoon session must sign a non-disclosure statement prior to entering that session. For additional information regarding the technical conference, please contact Joanne Wachholder at 202-502-8056.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-229 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit
32.2
  Certificate
Pursuant to Section 906
 of
Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002
 CERTIFICATION
OF CFO
  In connection with the annual report on
Form 10-K/A of Bovie Medical Corporation. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the“Report”), the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer certifies, 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,
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 Company.
  Date:
November 6, 2009
  /s/ Gary D.
Pickett
 Gary D.
Pickett
 Chief
Financial Officer
#### John Coughlan et al., Plaintiffs, v Turner Construction Company et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. F.P. Ryan Trucking, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Turner Construction Company et al., Second Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Canron Construction Corporation, Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 164]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 5, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ brief, dismissed their second third-party complaint against Canron Construction Corporation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An insurance carrier has no right of subrogation against its own insured to recover for a claim which arises out of the very same risk for which the insured is covered *(Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co.,*68 NY2d 465, 468). Canron Construction Corporation is a named insured of Continental Insurance Company, which also insured defendants and third-party plaintiffs. The contract between the parties constituted an “insured contract” and thus, the exclusion clause of the insurance policy, which defendants and third-party plaintiffs claim is applicable herein, does not apply *(see, Maksymowicz v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*232 AD2d 223).

Moreover, plaintiff, while working on the flatbed portion of a truck, was injured when a crane, which was being used to offload the truck, struck its cab, causing him to fall. There was no showing that any negligent use of the truck caused the injury *(see, Argentina v Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.,*93 NY2d 554); thus the auto liability coverage did not apply.

The argument that Canron Construction waived the antisubrogation rule by failing to raise it in its answer was not raised by the defendants and third-party plaintiffs in the Supreme *343Court and therefore may not be raised in this appeal *(see, Chateau D’If Corp. v City of New York,*219 AD2d 205, *lv denied*88 NY2d 811).

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered herein on December 18, 2001 (289 AD2d 122) is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Banyan Corporation - Exhibit 10.7






 Exhibit 10.7


Management agreement between Chiropractic USA and Southern Healthcare 


 On June 26th, 2002 the Registrant publicly disseminated a
  press release announcing that its wholly owned subsidiary, Chiropractic USA,
  Inc., assigned its right to acquire a chain of Chiropractic clinics in Louisiana
  (the "Louisiana Clinics") to Southern Health Care, Inc., a newly formed Colorado
  holding company with no other assets, in exchange for a significant management
  agreement (the "Management Agreement") and franchise agreements. This assignment
  was undertaken at the request of the financial institution funding the acquisition
  to accommodate their desired organizational structure for the transaction. Southern
  Health Care, Inc., in exchange for the rights to purchase the Louisiana Clinics
  has agreed to the Management Agreement with Chiropractic USA, Inc. whereby all
  revenues and expenses from the operations of the Louisiana Clinics will flow
  through to Chiropractic USA, Inc. Chiropractic USA, Inc. will in turn provide
  all operational oversight, management, marketing and administration for the
  Louisiana Clinics. Southern Health Care, Inc. has waived its conditions precedent
  regarding the acquisition, and is proceeding to close on the purchase expeditiously.
  When the purchase concludes, the Management Agreement is due to commence. Furthermore,
  the Louisiana Clinics will become the first franchised outlets for Chiropractic
  USA, Inc., which will then commence its franchising program for Chiropractic
  Clinics. 

 Southern Health Care, Inc. was incorporated for the specific
  purpose of accommodating the request of the financial institution providing
  the required funding. Southern Health Care, Inc. is wholly owned by Michael
  Gelmon and Cory Gelmon individually (the Gelmon's are CEO and President of Chiropractic
  USA, Inc. and the Registrant respectively). Neither Michael nor Cory Gelmon
  will be remunerated as a consequence of their ownership of Southern Health Care,
  Inc. 

The Registrant has consulted extensively with its auditors
  regarding this transaction. It is anticipated that the Management Agreement
  under which Chiropractic USA, Inc. will operate the Louisiana Clinics for Southern
  Health Care, Inc. will result in consolidating the operations of Southern Health
  Care, Inc. into the financial statements of Chiropractic USA, Inc. and as such
  will be included in the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant,
  as provided by Emerging Issues Task Force Consensus 97-2 relating to Physician
  Practice Management entities.