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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41457

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO BARAJAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-236-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mario Barajas has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Barajas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant parts of the record reflected therein, as well as Barajas’s response. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41457 Document: 00514123982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2017
No. 16-41457

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Barajas’s motions to vacate his 

sentence and remand the case to the district court, incorporated in his 

response, are DENIED; counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41457 Document: 00514123982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,266
<SECURITIES>                                     2,948
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                       233
<INVENTORY>                                      3,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,721
<PP&E>                                          83,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           486
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,125
<SALES>                                         17,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,122
<CGS>                                           10,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,776
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,220
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,220
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo – Sabesp (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Benedito Pinto Ferreira Braga Junior, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:  April 30,2020 By:/s/Benedito Pinto Ferreira Braga Junior Name:    Benedito Pinto Ferreira Braga Junior Title:      Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO PARRA-MONTALVO, a/k/a Alberto ParraServantes,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-05-151)

Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alberto Parra-Montalvo appeals his conviction and

seventy-two month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to

conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine

hydrochloride, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Parra-Montalvo’s attorney has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967),

raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but

stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The

Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of

his right to do so, Parra-Montalvo did not file a pro se

supplemental brief.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The

district court sentenced Parra-Montalvo within the properly

calculated sentencing guidelines range, United States v. Green, 436

F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006), and considered the factors

provided in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We

find Parra-Montalvo’s sentence of seventy-two months to be

reasonable. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Parra-Montalvo,

in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Parra-Montalvo requests that

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
- 3 -

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Parra-Montalvo.

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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
      32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BLUEGATE CORPORATION PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C.
      63.





I,
      Steven
      M. Plumb, the Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation, hereby certify
      that Bluegate Corporation's periodic report on Form 10-QSB, for the period
      ending March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained
      in
      the periodic report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the operations of Bluegate
      Corporation.








Date:
                May 11, 2006
            /s/
                Steven M. PlumbSteven
                M. Plumb, CPAChief
                Financial Officer
Opinion filed October 18, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-17-00186-CV

___________

DAVID MEISELL ET AL., Appellants

V.

ECTOR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-16-12-1180-CV

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed in this court an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. 

Appellants state that “[a]ll claims have now been settled or otherwise resolved,” and 

Appellants request that this court dismiss this cause. In accordance with Appellants’

request, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

October 18, 2018 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2259 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2259

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow 
         for data collection about military-connected students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2014

Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Cardin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow 
         for data collection about military-connected students.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Military Children Succeed in 
Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT.

    Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (vii) by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in clause (viii) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (viii) the following:
                            ``(ix) information regarding the number of 
                        military-connected students which, for the 
                        purposes of this clause, shall mean students 
                        with a parent who serves in the Armed Forces, 
                        including the National Guard and Reserve 
                        Forces, and information regarding academic 
                        achievement for such students, except that such 
                        information shall not be used for school or 
                        local educational agency accountability 
                        purposes under section 1116.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Institutional Properties/3 1997 First Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000768890
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/3
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,693
<SECURITIES>                                       109
<RECEIVABLES>                                      396
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          62,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         30,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,983
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,769
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### MARY E. HILL AND GEORGE V. HILL v. HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

October 3, 1985.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30938

 

SUSAN LAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE OF

THE SOUTH, a Professional Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 99-CV-9092-G)

_______________________________________________________

March 8, 2001

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Susan Laughlin appeals the district court’s entry of

summary judgment for defendant Cardiovascular Institute of the South (CIS). To be

entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§
2

2601-2654, an employee must give the employer notice sufficient to reasonably

apprise the employer of a request to take time off for a serious health condition. See

Satterfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 973, 980 (5th Cir. 1998). Notice

must be given as soon as is practicable. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303. The notice

should be sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLAqualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of the leave. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 825.302(c). Laughlin initially asked CIS for leave on December 3, 1998. 

Laughlin’s social worker Gail Aycock filled out a FMLA medical-certification form

indicating that Laughlin would return to work on January 4, after a month of leave. 

CIS granted Laughlin’s leave. 

On January 3, 1999 Both Laughlin and her husband Patrick Laughlin talked

to CIS employee John Chromy during a phone call and told him that Laughlin

needed more time, but said nothing about her health condition or how long she

expected to be out. The next day Laughlin resigned without arguing for her job or

making it clear that she was seeking FMLA-protected leave. 

Although Laughlin’s initial request for FMLA leave was sufficient notice to

CIS under the FMLA, her later request for an extension was not. It was not

adequate to inform CIS that Laughlin was requesting FMLA-qualifying leave. See

Satterfield, 135 F.3d at 981 (holding that an employee’s communication that she
3

was “sick” and “having a lot of pain in her side” was insufficient notice under the

FMLA). Indeed, Chromy testified that he was unaware that Laughlin was

requesting an extension of her FMLA leave and that he would have given her an

extension had he known she wanted it.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.28


 


REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT


 


Recitals


 


		1.	Effective December 1, 2013 (the “Effective Date”) Central Energy GP, LLC (“Central GP”) commenced conducting
business in Dallas, Texas at 4809 Cole Avenue, Suite 108, Dallas, Texas 75205 ( the “Dallas Office”).



 


		2.	The Dallas Office is currently under lease to Katy Resources, LLC (“Katy”) and Katy is paying all of the rent,
utilities, telephones and cost of office equipment and furnishings attributable to the use of the Dallas Office (collectively,
“Overhead Costs”).



 


		3.	Katy has agreed to allow Central GP to share its Dallas Office space with the agreement that Central GP will reimburse Katy,
on a monthly basis, for that portion of the Overhead Costs which are fairly allocable to Central GP’s use of the Dallas Office.



 


		4.	Central GP and Katy (the “Parties”, and individually a “Party”) are entering into this Reimbursement
Agreement (this “Agreement”) to set out the manner in which Central GP has agreed to reimburse Katy for Central GP’s
use of the Dallas Office space.



 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties
hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Monthly Invoice for Reimbursement. Katy will prepare and submit an invoice to Central GP for its share of Overhead Costs
at the end of each month.






		2.	Payment of Monthly Invoice. Central GP agrees to pay each invoice within ten (10) days of the invoice date.






		3.	Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue in force and effect thereafter
on a monthly basis until terminated by either Party upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice.



 


	 Central Energy GP LLC	 	Katy Resources, LLC
	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ G. Thomas Graves III	 	By:  	/s/ Douglas Weir
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	G. Thomas Graves III,	 	 	Douglas Weir
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Chairman of the Board	 	 	CFO and Member
#### STATE v. ROBERTS

No. 200A01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 424

Motion by the Attorney General for temporary stay allowed 6 April 2001.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, James Briscoe, President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Star Gold Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Liberty Star Gold Corp. for the year ended January 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Dated:  May 12, 2005

/s/ James Briscoe__________________________

James Briscoe

President and Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1830 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1830

To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that interest shall 
not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for active duty service members and 
                             their spouses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2007

   Mr. Bayh introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that interest shall 
not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for active duty service members and 
                             their spouses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interest Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. NO ACCRUAL OF INTEREST FOR ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE MEMBERS AND 
              THEIR SPOUSES.

    Section 455 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) No Accrual of Interest for Active Duty Service Members and 
Their Spouses.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this part, and except as provided in paragraph (3), interest on 
        a loan made under this part shall not accrue for an eligible 
        borrower.
            ``(2) Eligible borrower.--In this subsection, the term 
        `eligible borrower' means an individual--
                    ``(A) who is--
                            ``(i) serving on active duty during a war 
                        or other military operation or national 
                        emergency; or
                            ``(ii) performing qualifying National Guard 
                        duty during a war or other military operation 
                        or national emergency; or
                    ``(B) who is the spouse of an individual described 
                in subparagraph (A).
            ``(3) Limitation.--An individual who qualifies as an 
        eligible borrower under this subsection may receive the benefit 
        of this subsection for not more than 60 months.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEVIN HILL.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ENRICO SALAZAR SANCHEZ, a/k/a Juan Sanchez,

a/k/a Carlos Pun,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR00-36-DKC)

Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enrico Salazar Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Ranganath Manthripragada,

Assistant United States Attorney, Gina Laurie Sims, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Enrico Salazar Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order

denying Sanchez’s “Motion to Withdraw Unauthorized Enhanced Sentence.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sanchez, No. CR00-36-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED