alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

April 4, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40200

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO ADRIAN GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:05-CR-677-ALL

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Adrian Guerrero has filed an unopposed motion to

summarily affirm the conviction and summarily vacate the sentence

and remand for resentencing in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127

S. Ct. 625 (2005), and United States v. Estrada-Mendoza, 475 F.3d

258 (5th Cir. 2007). The motion is GRANTED, the conviction is

AFFIRMED, the sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-QSB OF TAG-IT PACIFIC,
INC. TO WHICH THIS EXHIBIT IS A PART AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999  
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999  
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1999  
<CASH>                                       215,357 
<SECURITIES>                                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,112,353 
<ALLOWANCES>                                 294,113 
<INVENTORY>                                6,201,270 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          11,329,229 
<PP&E>                                     2,943,156 
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,351,925 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            12,988,111 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,748,650 
<BONDS>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0 
<PREFERRED>                                        0 
<COMMON>                                       6,727 
<OTHER-SE>                                 7,232,734 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              12,988,111 
<SALES>                                    5,633,013 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5,633,013 
<CGS>                                      3,623,044 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              5,384,556 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              23,678 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            23,678 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              224,779 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  37,285 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          187,494 
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0 
<CHANGES>                                          0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 187,494 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.03 
                                  

</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 152

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 63

[Report No. 105–70]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

SEPTEMBER 2, 1997

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the

Central Valley project, California, as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 63 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TRINITY LAKE.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The reservoir created by Trinity

3 Dam in the Central Valley project, California, and des4 ignated as ‘‘Clair Engle Lake’’ by Public Law 88–662 (78

5 Stat. 1093) is hereby redesignated as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula7 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United

8 States to the reservoir referred to in subsection (a) shall

9 be considered to be a reference to ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

10 (c) REPEAL OF EARLIER DESIGNATION.—Public

11 Law 88–662 (78 Stat. 1093) is repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 152

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 63

[Report No. 105–70]

AN ACT

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam

‘‘Trinity Lake’’.in the Central Valley project, California, as

SEPTEMBER 2, 1997

Reported without amendment
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 17, 2023

No. 04-23-00162-CR

Terrance BRYANT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10931

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of 

jurisdiction. 

It is so ORDERED on May 17, 2023.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of May, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
AMENDED AND RESTATED REVOLVING NOTE

$1,500,000                                                 Denver, Colorado
                                                           December 9, 1996


     For value received, the undersigned, CARLYLE GOLF, INC., a Colorado
corporation (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay on June 30, 1999 to
the order of Norwest Business Credit, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the
"Lender"), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at any other
place designated at any time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the
United States of America and in immediately available funds, the principal
sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,500,000)
or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all advances made by
the Lender to the Borrower hereunder, together with interest on the
principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time, computed on
the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-day year, from
the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate from time to
time in effect under the Credit and Security Agreement dated as of July 7,
1995, as amended (the "Credit Agreement") by and between the Lender and
the Borrower.  The principal hereof and interest accruing thereon shall be
due and payable as provided in the Credit Agreement.  This Note may be
prepaid only in accordance with the Credit Agreement.

     This Note is issued pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit
Agreement, which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. 
This Note is the Revolving Note referred to in the Credit Agreement.

     This Note is secured, among other things, pursuant to the Credit
Agreement and the Loan Documents as therein defined, and may now or
hereafter be secured by one or more other security agreements, mortgages,
deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments or agreements.

     The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, including
attorneys' fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not paid when
due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced.

     Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor and
protest are expressly waived.

                              CARLYLE GOLF, INC.


                              By: /s/Jerome M. Hause
                              Its: President
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie Callender’s Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 11, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph F. Trungale, President and 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:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.





Dated: August 30, 2010


BY:/s/ Joseph F. TrungaleJoseph F. TrungalePresident and Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kaitlyn Adams","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kaitlyn-e-adamsnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA, USDA Forest Service Fly Next Generation of Moon Tree Seeds on Artemis I","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wG0LiwqPCK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/nasa-usda-forest-service-fly-next-generation-of-moon-tree-seeds-on-artemis-i\/\">NASA, USDA Forest Service Fly Next Generation of Moon Tree Seeds on Artemis I<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/nasa-usda-forest-service-fly-next-generation-of-moon-tree-seeds-on-artemis-i\/embed\/#?secret=wG0LiwqPCK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, USDA Forest Service Fly Next Generation of Moon Tree Seeds on Artemis I” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wG0LiwqPCK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/cradle-2_moontree.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

177 N. Church Ave., Suite 605

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Tel: (520) 222-8270

Fax: (520) 222-8274

Elias Damianakos, Esq.

Email: elias@damianakoslaw.com

State Bar No. 022850

Attorney for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Undersigned counsel moves this court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) for a psychological 

or psychiatric examination of the defendant, and states as follows:

1. This request is based upon observations of undersigned counsel. The Defendant 

appears to have difficulty understanding what is happening in court and discussing 

aspects of the court proceedings.

2. The Defendant has a documented history of mental health issues, and is connected

with La Frontera. The Defendant takes numerous medications, both for 

psychological concerns and also for a multitude of physical ailments. 

3. Counsel for the Defendant is not professionally trained to effectively evaluate the 

aforementioned factors to conclusively determine whether the Defendant is 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VERONICA GUADALUPE 

SALDIVAR,

Defendant.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR15-2062 TUC JAS (CRP)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

COMPETENCY EXAMINATION

(Pursuant to: 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a))

(No Hearing Required)

Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

competent to stand trial without the specialized assistance of a qualified mental heath 

expert.

4. Counsel for the Defendant has spoken generally with Dr. B. Robert Crago, Ph.D.

regarding the above factors and has formed the opinion that a competency 

examination of the defendant is necessary to insure a fair and proper disposition of 

this cause.

5. Counsel requests that the Court appoint Dr. B. Robert Crago, Ph.D., 5363 E. Pima 

St., Suite 100, Tucson, Arizona 85712, to perform the examination in this case. Dr. 

Crago is a licensed psychologist in the state of Arizona, and specializes in 

neuropsychology which will be particularly useful in this case. It will enable him to 

apprise the Court as to whether the Defendant suffers any mental disease of defect 

that is “organic” in nature. A copy of Dr. Crago’s curriculum vitae is attached to this 

motion.

6. The Defendant is not in custody.

Wherefore, undersigned counsel requests this Court find reasonable cause to order a 

competency examination of the Defendant, and appoint Dr. Crago to conduct the examination and 

prepare a report.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of May, 2016

DAMIANAKOS LAW FIRM, PLLC.

By: /s/ ELIAS DAMIANAKOS 

 

Elias Damianakos

Attorney for Defendant

Copy delivered electronically this date to:

Christina Vejar, Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Cosmonauts Complete Fourth Expedition 38 Spacewalk","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iPJ88Mt3It\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/cosmonauts-complete-fourth-expedition-38-spacewalk\/\">Cosmonauts Complete Fourth Expedition 38 Spacewalk<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/cosmonauts-complete-fourth-expedition-38-spacewalk\/embed\/#?secret=iPJ88Mt3It\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Cosmonauts Complete Fourth Expedition 38 Spacewalk” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iPJ88Mt3It\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/pic-012614a.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alberto Arellano Valencia,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Brandon Maxwell, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00499-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

This case has been trial ready since January 10, 2019, when the Court granted 

summary judgment for Defendants in part and denied it in part. The Court appointed 

counsel to represent the Plaintiff for the purpose of settlement discussions and/or trial. On 

April 19, 2019, the parties filed the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. The Court set the case 

for a pretrial conference to be held on May 20, 2019. On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney 

filed a Motion to Vacate the pretrial conference due to a loss of contact with the Plaintiff, 

who was released from prison on February 26, 2019. The Plaintiff’s attorney reported that 

Plaintiff had provided only one telephone number as a point of contact and efforts to reach 

the Plaintiff with this telephone number had failed. Counsel had not heard from the 

Plaintiff for over a month.

The Court reset the pretrial conference for September 4, 2019, and reset it again for 

September 9, 2019. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a case is subject to dismissal 

where there has been neither proceedings nor pleadings, notices, or other documents filed 

for six (6) months or more. LRCiv. 41.1. This case is subject to such dismissal as of 
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

October 19, 2019, for lack of prosecution. Because the case is set for a pretrial conference 

before then, the Court orders the Plaintiff’s attorney to notify the Court that contact has 

been reestablished with Plaintiff in order to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution. In the event, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case 

continues, the Court shall vacate the pretrial conference and dismiss the case, with 

prejudice, for lack of prosecution. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that within 24 hours of the filing date of this Order, the Plaintiff’s 

attorney shall file a Notice to Show Cause that contact with the Plaintiff has been 

reestablished, and he is ready to proceed with the pretrial conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Plaintiff has not reestablished 

contact with his attorney and is not ready to proceed with the pretrial conference, the Court 

shall vacate the pretrial conference and dismiss the case, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute, pursuant to LRCiv 41.1, without further notice to the Plaintiff.

Dated this 6th day of September, 2019.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This document relates to: 

EDDIE HALL 

Civil Case No. 2:17-CV-02326-DGC 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *          *

ORDER 

Considering the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal Eddie Johnson, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that all claims of Plaintiff 

Eddie Johnson against Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., in Civil 

Action No. MDL No. 2641 (Member Case 2:17-cv-02326) are dismissed in their entirety without 

prejudice as to the refiling of same, and each party shall bear its own costs. 

Dated this _________ day of ____________, 2017. 

 

 

 ______________________________________ 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8528-1 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

[CIVIL MINUTE ENTRY]

Case No. CV 15-00552-EJM Date: November 1, 2016 

Title: Ronald Lopez, etc., v. Metro Fitness Incorporated, etc. 

HONORABLE BERNARDO P. VELASCO

PROCEEDINGS: X Open Court Chambers __ Other 

This matter came before the Court this date for a Settlement Conference. Plaintiff

Ronald Lopez is present and accompanied by his attorney, Sean Davis. Defendant Metro

Fitness Incorporated’s president, Ed Nissan, is present and accompanied by Metro’s attorney,

Kelly Relich. The parties have met, conferred, and agreed to a settlement in full as follows:

Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $20,000.00. Said payment shall be made

to Plaintiff’s Counsel within thirty days of this date and the above-entitled matter will be

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that the above settlement is approved. 

TIME: 10:00 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m.

cjm

Case 4:15-cv-00552-EJM Document 39 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 1
#### W. G. Wade *v.*D. Kirkley.

Appeal and Error — Bill of Exceptions — When Signed.

A bill of exceptions cannot be made up and signed in vacation. Time may be given till the first day of the next tenn. '

APPEAL FROM SIMPSON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

As decided by this court in *Freeman vs. Brenham, 17 B. Mon., 608, Tweed vs. Commonwealth, 2 Met. 379, Allard vs. Smith, 2**557*Met.*298, *Vandevere vs.*Griffith, *2 Met.*425, a bill of evidence can not be made np and signed in vacation.

If time be given, it must be to the first day of the next term; and unless filed on that day, tbe right to have it filed and signed will be lost.

On appellant’s motion a day during vacation was given to prepare, have signed and file in bill of evidence, which placed the case beyond the reach of this and the inferior court after the term had expired.

Motion to set aside order dismissing the appeal on applicant’s affidavit is overruled.