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

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41700 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOEL SANCHEZ-GALLARZO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-639-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joel Sanchez-Gallarzo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez-Gallarzo complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Sanchez-Gallarzo thus contends that hisNo. 02-41700 -2- sentence should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Sanchez-Gallarzo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Martek Biosciences
Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the
date hereof: a)
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended January 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;
andb)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 /s/ Henry Linsert, Jr. Henry Linsert, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Martek Biosciences
Corporation and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kender’s Admr. *v.*N. G. Taber.

Statute of Limitations — Surety.

The Statute of Limitations will run in favor of a surety.

APPEAL PROM PLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1866.

Opinion

by the Court :

This appeal is prosecuted by the administrator of J. A. Hender to reverse a judgment which the court rendered on the obligation of N. G-. Taber to Hender, dated November 1, 1848, in which he undertook that he and M. TIedrick would pay a certain debt which Hender and Hedrick then owned Levasser *&*Son; all other questions were continued for further adjudication. The court adjudged that Taber was only surety for Hedrick and released by the Statute of Limitations.

Hender and Hedrick had been mercantile partners, and when Hender sold his interest in the store to Hedrick this debt due Levasser *&*Son seems to have been the only indebtedness of the firm. Hedrick undertook to discharge the debt; afterward he made an agreement with Taber to become an ostensible partner for the purpose of giving him both a better credit and trade; whether this was before or after the date of this obligation we suppose is of but little consequence because as the debt to Levasser & Son had a prior existence which Hedrick undertook to discharge, his liability to Hender -was anterior to "the Arrangement with Taber, and Taber’s ostensible partnership had nothing to do with *413the individual credit given! ihis late partner Hedrick, consequently whether Taber’s ostensible partnership began before or after the date of this obligation cannot alter its legal effect. This statement clearly shows that Taber undertook as surety of Hedrick that the debt to Levasser & Son should he paid, and not as a principal, for it never was the debt of the ostensible firm of Hedrick ¿i Taber, but the individual obligation of Hedrick which Taber undertook should he discharged. There is no error in the judgment. Wherefore, it is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

T.W., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-0772

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lawrence Lefler, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jeri Delgado, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
- Home
- About   - WSTF Overview
  - Leadership/Organization
  - Services
  - History
  - Contact
- Capabilities   - Testing and Analysis
  - Supporting
- Visit   - WSTF Safety Video
  - Visitor Requests
- Site Services   - Environmental
  - Protective Services
  - Safety and Mission Assurance

# 							Safety and Mission Assurance						

Safety and Mission Assurance provides independent oversight and support throughout every project and program to ensure the safety of our workforce and facility in the design, development, evaluation, and performance of hazardous operations. We work in partnership with site personnel to validate requirements and aid in planning for conformance, helping projects to proceed smoothly.  We check for conformance through audits and verification of requirements, eliminating or preventing issues arising from nonconformances.

## Learn more about WSTF Safety and Mission Assurance

				WSTF Home                			

1 min readQuality AssuranceArticle9 years ago1 min readQuality ManagementArticle6 years ago2 min readOur Safety CultureArticle9 years ago2 min readIndustrial Hygiene and Occupational HealthArticle9 years ago1 min readQuality ControlArticle9 years ago2 min readRisk ManagementArticle9 years ago2 min readContinual ImprovementArticle9 years ago
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1764 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1764

   To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in 
    Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2003

  Mr. Miller (for himself and Mr. Chambliss) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in 
    Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN LEWIS CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE.

    (a) Designation.--The building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., 
in Atlanta, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ``John Lewis 
Civil Rights Institute''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the John Lewis 
Civil Rights Institute.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.123

                                   DEMAND NOTE

$250,000.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                                 October 1, 1998

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($250,000.00), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest of 8.5%
plus 3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

         The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

         Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

         Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

         Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

         This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

         All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

         This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                            Wilshire Technologies, Inc.

                                            By: /s/ James W. Klingler
                                               ---------------------------------
                                            Name:  James W. Klingler
                                            Title:  VP & CFO
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 30, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD JENNINGS FOGLE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD SMELSER; JOHN W.

SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State

of Colorado,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-1291

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00932-ZLW) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(9). 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court. The court is 

not in possession of any court records or transcripts, therefore this court is unable to 

forward court records and transcripts as requested. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1291 Document: 01018468599 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Page: 1
CERTIFICATION OF
           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Goldberg certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a 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 annual 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 annual report;

4. 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 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 annual report is being prepared;

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

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

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of 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 weakness 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; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


Dated: March 30, 2004

/s/ David Goldberg
--------------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CURTIS E. TRENT.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification granted. (See 157 *N. J. Super.*231)
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130606 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. STEVEN JAMES, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of MARJORIE JAMES, Justices Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130606 COA: 262622 Jackson CC: 03-006278-NH

PHILLIP RICHARDS, M.D., and KHAWAJA IKRAM, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,

and

W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the majority's decision to de ny leave to appeal. I write separately because I am disturbed by the analysis the Court of Appeals empl oyed in justifying its
decision to reverse the trial c ourt's summary disposition order. The statute at issue in this case, MCL 600.2912d(1), requires a medical malp ractice plaintiff to file an affidavit of merit with his complaint. In Roberts v Mecosta Co Ge n Hosp (After Remand) 1 , this

1 470 Mich 679 (2004)._______________________________________ __ 2

2 Court discussed the adequacy requirements fo r notices of intent u nder MCL 600.2912b. Despite the striking similarities between the notice of intent statute and the affidavit of merit statute, the Court of Appeals held th at differing "policy considerations" made an application of Roberts unwarranted. Indeed the panel made its "policy considerations" known by holding that "unlike the court in Roberts , we do not need to read additional requirements or limitations into the [affidav it of merit] statute to aid its rational application or workability."

Simply stated, the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Roberts to this case. 2 The panel did not provide ad equate justification for its decision to disregard Roberts , but merely relied on "policy considerations" as a subterfuge for its obvious disagreement
with Roberts . While the Court of Appeals is not required to agree with this Court's decisions, it is required to properly apply th ose decisions. However, because the Court of Appeals opinion is unpublished and has no precedentia l value, this Court's intervention is
unwarranted at this time.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals ig nored this Court's remand order in Mullaney v
Kistler , 471 Mich 932 (2004), where this Court re manded back to the Court of Appeals a case dealing with the suffi ciency of an affidavit of merit specifically instructing the Court of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of Roberts

.

l0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1723

To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma display panels for use in plasma 

flat panel screen televisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma display panels 

for use in plasma flat panel screen televisions.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PLASMA DISPLAY PANELS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.23 Plasma display panels for use in plasma flat screen televisions (provided 

for in subheading 8529.90.53) .......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 
2

•S 1723 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C.  SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Promotora Valle Hermoso, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alexey
A. Kim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) 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 result of
operations of the Company.




/s/ Alexey
      A. KimAlexey
      A. KimChief
      Executive OfficerApril
      7, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo HERNANDEZ-SOTO, aka Arturo Soto-Hernandez, Arturo Rosas-Hernandez, Jose Candelario Soto-Corona, Jose Soto-Corona, Jose Candelario Soto, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10081.

D.C. No. CR-01-00333-RCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Christina M. Cabanillas, Julia Soto, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Francisco Leon, Esq., Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Hernandez-Soto appeals his 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Soto’s counsel has filed a brief, stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Crossroads Systems, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the 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.



Dated: January 26, 2005



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|/s/ Jennifer L. Ray                        
|Jennifer L. Ray Principal Financial Officer