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

No. 21

- 50509 **consolidated with** No. 21

- 50545 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Enrique Cadena** 

**- Rodriguez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

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

- CR

- 584

- 1

USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 58

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Enrique Cadena

- Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) for illegally reentering the United States after

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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

### FILED December 16, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-50509 Document: 00516134796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2021No. 21

- 50509 c/w No. 21

- 50545

2 a deportation. He also appeals the revocation of the supervised release term s imposed for convictions in a se parate proceeding . Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time on appea l, Cadena

- Rodriguez contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is fo reclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.
As the Government asserts and as Cadena

- Rodriguez 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. 200 7). Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), su mmary affirmance is proper.
Ac cordingly, the 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 its brief is **DENIED** as unnecessary
. Case: 21-50509 Document: 00516134796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2021
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1



                    INTEGRAL SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended                            Twelve Months Ended
                                                  September 30,                                 September 30,
Basic:                                2000           1999           1998             2000           1999            1998
                                   ---------      ---------      ---------         ---------      ---------      ---------
<S>                                <C>            <C>            <C>               <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted average number of
 common shares                     9,426,068      7,802,991      6,484,184         8,829,182      6,969,090      6,443,433
Income from Continuing
 Operations                            $0.08          $0.13          $0.05             $0.42          $0.43          $0.27
Income from Discontinued
 Operations                            $0.00          $0.00          $0.01             $0.01          $0.03          $0.04
Income on Disposal of
 Discontinued Segment                  $0.04          $0.00          $0.00             $0.04          $0.00          $0.00
                                   ---------      ---------      ---------         ---------      ---------      ---------
Net Income                             $0.12          $0.13          $0.06             $0.47          $0.46          $0.31

Diluted:
Weighted average number of
 common shares                     9,598,615      8,331,158      6,980,166         9,283,546      7,422,601      6,882,933
Income from Continuing
 Operations                            $0.08          $0.12          $0.05             $0.40          $0.40          $0.25
Income from Discontinued
 Operations                            $0.00          $0.00          $0.01             $0.01          $0.03          $0.04
Income on Disposal of
 Discontinued Segment                  $0.04          $0.00          $0.00             $0.04          $0.00          $0.00
                                   ---------      ---------      ---------         ---------      ---------      ---------
Net Income                             $0.12          $0.12          $0.06             $0.45          $0.43          $0.29
</TABLE>

                                     (18)
FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Ross Lyndon-James, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of National  Healthcare
Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of material  fact or omit to state a material  fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's   other  certifying  officer  and  I  am  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days of the  filing  date of this  quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the  registrant's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the  equivalent
functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize,  and report  financial data and have identified for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

Date:   June 9, 2006

/s/ ROSS LYNDON-JAMES
---------------------------
Name: Ross Lyndon-James
Title: CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6505

AARON B. ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of the 

State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-04011-GLR)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion, in which Roberts asked the district court to set aside its order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000719958 
<NAME>                              DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1983-1 LTD PSHIP
                                     
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                133,429
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          70,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      204,348
<PP&E>                              35,528,418
<DEPRECIATION>                      35,160,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        608,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  13,463
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            456,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          608,912
<SALES>                               670,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      680,566
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         388,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       292,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   292,363
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          292,363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           38.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       9,995,787
<SECURITIES>                                 3,010,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,471,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                   365,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,242,100
<PP&E>                                      15,514,286
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,104,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,934,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,186,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       642,971
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,599,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,934,325
<SALES>                                     28,121,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,577,926
<CGS>                                       14,337,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,597,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,059,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,947,070
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,112,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,112,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert ARMSTEAD v. STATE.

8 Div. 157.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending November 7, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
# FIL ED Sep temb er 6, 1995 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION

CASA JUVENILE SERVICES ) HAMBLEN COUNTY ASSOCIATION, INC. and ) 03A01-9503-JV-00099 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) HUMAN SERVICES ) ) Petitioners-Appellees ) ) ) v. ) ) ) LORETTA NMN PHILLIPS ARRIETTA ) ) Respondent-Appellant ) ) HON. MINDY NORTON SEALS, and ) JUDGE ) FLORENCIA ARRIETTA SALGADO ) ) Respondent ) ) IN RE: DUSTIN MATTHEW ) ARRIETTA ) D.O.B. 7-18-88 ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

C. E. BUD CUNNINGHAM OF MORRISTOWN FOR APPELLANT CHARLES W. BURSON, Attorney General and Reporter, and MICHELLE McGRIFF, Assistant Attorney General, OF NASHVILLE FOR APPELLEES

O P I N I O N

Goddard, P.J.2 Loretta Phillips Arrietta, mother of Dustin Matthew Arrietta, appeals a judgment of the Juvenile Court for Hamblen County which terminated her parental rights.Rule 10. (a) Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the 1 concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the trial court.

(2) there is material evidence to support the verdict of the jury. (3) no reversible error of law appears. Such cases may be affirmed as follows: "Affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a)." 3

She raises the following two issues on appeal:

I. Whether the Court erred in its failure to return the child to the Respondent/Appellant when there was a clear abuse of discretion by DHS in its treatment of Respondent/Appellant. II. Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the parental rights was in the child's best interests.

Our review of the record persuades us that the evidence preponderates in favor of the Trial Court's actions as to both issues. We accordingly conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court. 1

The case is remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Ms. Arrietta and her surety.

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

CONCUR:

________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________4

Don T. McMurray, J.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8


                                 CONFIDENTIAL

February 8, 2000

[Officer]
GlobalSCAPE, Inc.

     Re:  GlobalSCAPE, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan (the "Stock Option Plan")

Dear [Officer]:

     On January 1, 1998 you and GlobalSCAPE, Inc. ("GlobalSCAPE") signed a
letter under which GlobalSCAPE granted you an option vesting over a three year
period beginning January 1, 1998 (the "Option").

     Section 9 of the letter and Section 5 of the Plan contain provisions
requiring adjustment of your Option under circumstances described in those
provisions. As you know, the Boards of Directors of GlobalSCAPE and ATSI have
approved a financing plan as described in more detail on the attached Exhibit A
                                                                      ---------
(the "Financing Plan"). To create the number of common shares needed to
establish a viable public market as contemplated by this plan, GlobalSCAPE will
either have to issue substantially more shares than the 1.7 million currently
outstanding, or will have to declare a stock split. The issuance of additional
shares or a stock split, taken by itself, might give rise to a requirement that
the number of shares subject to your Option be adjusted. However, we believe
that any new issuance or stock split that occurs would be part of the financing
Plan described on Exhibit A which, as a whole, is not the type of event that
                  ---------
should give rise to an adjustment under the letter and the Plan. In exchange for
$5,000, you have agreed that you will not claim any right of adjustment in the
number of common shares underlying your Option under the terms of the letter and
the Plan as a result of the consummation of the Financing Plan, and you agree
that you will not claim that the financing plan was unfair to you.

     Please sign this letter where indicated below and return it to me to
acknowledge your agreement.

<PAGE>

                                          Sincerely,



                                          Arthur L. Smith
                                          Chairman of the board of GlobalSCAPE

Agreed:

_________________________
[Officer]
Date:_____________
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: November 14, 2005 |                                            |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ Elliott Balbert                             |   |
|                         | Elliott Balbert                                 |
|                         | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|                         | (Principal Executive Officer)                   |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 22, 2015

NO. 03-14-00805-CV

Devvy Kidd, Appellant

v.

Carlos Cascos, Texas Secretary of State, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 4, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.