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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41753 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ANTONIO SANCHEZ-LOREDO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-689-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Antonio Sanchez-Loredo 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-Loredo contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41753 -2- that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
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-Loredo acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL GATES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MARCELO, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56107

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 02018

- DDP

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Michael Gates, a California state pris oner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051 , 1056 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56107

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gates failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Gates’s ear pain and hearing

impairment. See id . at 1057

- 60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if

he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical

malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of

treatment does not amount to deliberate indiff erence).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gates’s motions for

appointment of counsel because Gates failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor , 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting

forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel). Contrary

to Gates’s contention, the documents that Gates submitted did not require the

district court to hold a competency hearing. See Allen v. Calderon , 408 F.3d 1150,

1153 (9th Cir. 2005).

We reject as meritless Gates’s contention that the district court erred in its

decision regarding Gates’s motion for an extension to complete discovery, because

the district court granted Gates’s motion and provided him with his requested

extension.

AFFIRM ED.
#### Borough of Wilkinsburg v. WIMCO Metals Inc.

*127C.P. of Allegheny County,

no. GD97-11304.

*James Corbelli,*for plaintiff.

*Paul F Fagan*and *Thomas A. Shumaker,*for defendants.

June 7, 2000-

FRIEDMAN, *J,*

INTRODUCTION

This case centers on the *intention*of plaintiff, the Borough of Wilkinsburg, to impose its business privilege tax on certain income received by defendants. The question is not one of constitutionality of the tax. All exhibits were jointly presented to the court and therefore are not designated as either plaintiff’s or defendants’ exhibits. Also, it should be noted that defendants were referred to during the hearing collectively as “WIMCO,” and the court will occasionally do likewise herein.

Defendants do not rely on pre-enactment promises that the ordinance regarding business privilege tax would be *different*from the one that was in fact passed; this is plaintiff’s characterization only and the court rejects it as unsupported by the credible evidence; rather defendants’ contention is that the ordinance, *as passed,*and as clarified by ancillary rules and regulations embodied in the instruction sheet, *does not attempt*to tax any receipts that involve a shipment from an out-of-state scrap metal supplier to an end user in Pennsylvania.

*128In the early 1980s, plaintiff decided it needed more revenue to meet its budgetary needs. After public hearings and discussions of alternatives with plaintiff’s largest employers, including WIMCO and WTAE, a major radio and television broadcast station, plaintiff’s council passed an ordinance imposing the tax. The first return was due in 1983 and reflected the tax payable for calendar year 1982. WIMCO filed every return in a timely and complete fashion.

For almost 15 years, the parties operated on a specific interpretation of the ordinance: that it would apply only to one segment of defendants’ business, the brokering of scrap metals between sellers and buyers who were *both*located in Pennsylvania. This interpretation is reflected in the instructions plaintiff sent out with the tax forms and also by plaintiff’s own conduct both before and after the tax was imposed. The uncontroverted evidence supports this.

Plaintiff now asserts that the tax applies, and should have applied, to transactions where the buyer alone is in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff also now contends that because WIMCO occasionally takes *title*to the scrap metal (depending on whether it is shipped FOB seller or FOB buyer), WIMCO is a *seller*rather than a *broker.*

The credible and essentially uncontroverted evidence shows that this recent interpretation of plaintiff’s tax is contrary to plaintiff’s prior interpretations and is the result not of plaintiff’s own governmental actions, but rather of plaintiff’s new tax collector’s use of its own internal rules and regulations without regard to plaintiff’s prior policies. It should be noted that plaintiff’s prior conduct is reflective of its *intended*policy. This is not a case where either the earlier borough managers or borough councils were *ignoring*policy.

The verdict must be in favor of defendants. See verdict slip filed separately.
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2017-10-16 15:30:10","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":[" ","4","14","27","86","16","31","19","14","21","3"," ","12","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["4","13","4","24","88","12","30","22","10","19","2"," ","10","4"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" ","1"," ","3","3"," ","4"," "," "," "," "," "," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q4"}
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LUKE TAFARI BOWEN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2046

[ February 11, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Steven Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 43

- 20 10

- CF

- 000586

- BXMX

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney Gen eral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
---

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of Trimax Corporation., a
Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), Robert Vivacqua, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company do
hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350), that to his 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.

|By:    | /s/ Robert Vivacqua            | 
|------ | ------------------------------ | 
|       |                                | 
|Name:  | Robert Vivacqua                | 
|       |                                | 
|Title: | Acting Chief Financial Officer | 
|       |                                | 
|Date:  | January 16, 2006               | 

[A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Trimax Corporation. and will be retained by
Trimax Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.]

---
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Robert W. Siegel, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of FC BANC CORP..,certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of FC BANC CORP..;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 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 annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are 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 prior to 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 officers and 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 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;
and



6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not 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.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Robert W. Siegel   
|                      |  | Robert W. Siegel       
|                      |  | Vice President,        
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



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 OurPets Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 0f 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 of OurPets Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) |  | The financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|   |  |                        
|-- |  | -----------------------
|By |  | /s/    JOHN G.
MURCHIE 
|   |  | JOHN G. MURCHIE        
|   |  | Chief Financial Officer



Dated: March 30, 2005



This certification is made
solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other purpose.



43
SCAD-14-0000353 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. STEPHEN CARL WOODRUFF, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( ODC 13-003-9073) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard,

assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the November 12, 2020 motion, filed by Respondent Stephen Woodruff, which we deem a motion for reconsideration, and the exhibits and declarations submitted in support of that motion, and the record in this matter, we note that, pursuant to Rule 40(a) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration of this court’s October 11, 2016 order of disbarment was October 21, 2016 and therefore find that Respondent Woodruff’s motion is untimely. Therefore, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-14-0000353 27-NOV-2020 08:21 AM Dkt. 87 ORDIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Woodruff’s motion

for relief is denied in its entirety, without prejudice to his applying for reinstatement, pursuant to Rule 2.17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i , after November 10, 2021. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 27, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Katherine G. Leonard

2
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 on Form 10-K of American Enterprise Life
Insurance Company (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Mark E. Schwarzmann, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Arthur H. Berman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Mark E. Schwarzmann
------------------------------------
Name:    Mark E. Schwarzmann
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    March 14, 2005



/s/ Arthur H. Berman
------------------------------------
Name:    Arthur H. Berman
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    March 14, 2005

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate
disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under
that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and
specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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