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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41394

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRUZ YANEZ-BENAVIDES, also known as

Gabriela Ramirez-Montoya,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-107-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Cruz Yanez-Benavides appeals her jury-trial conviction

and sentence for importing and possessing with intent to

distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 960(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(B). She

argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b), 846, 952, 960(a) and (b),

are facially unconstitutional because, in enacting these

statutes, Congress intended to make drug quantity a sentencing
No. 02-41394

-2-

enhancement provable to a judge by a preponderance of the

evidence and the courts may not construe these statutes in

contravention of this congressional intent in order to conform

the statutes with the Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

 Yanez acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by this

court’s precedent and raises the argument solely to preserve it

for possible Supreme Court review. See United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532

U.S. 1045 (2001).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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.
IV

House Calendar No. 170

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 410

[Report No. 105–498]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for a national

dialogue on Social Security and to establish the Bipartisan Panel to

Design Long-Range Social Security Reform.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1998

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide

for a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social

Security Reform.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3546) to

4 provide for a national dialogue on Social Security and to

5 establish the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range So-
2

HRES 410 RH

1 cial Security Reform. The bill shall be considered as read

2 for amendment. The amendment recommended by the

3 Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill,

4 modified by the amendments printed in the report of the

5 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall

6 be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be

7 considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any

8 further amendment thereto to final passage without inter9 vening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the

10 bill, as amended, which shall be equally divided and con11 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

12 the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) a further amend13 ment printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to

14 clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Rangel

15 of New York or his designee, which shall be considered

16 as read and shall be separately debatable for one hour

17 equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

18 opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

19 instructions.

House Calendar No. 170

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 410

[Report No. 105–498]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3546)

sign Long-Range Social Security Reform.rity and to establish the Bipartisan Panel to Deto provide for a national dialogue on Social SecuAPRIL 28, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 373

Commending democracy in Botswana.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 26, 1998

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. PAYNE, and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

International Relations

RESOLUTION

Commending democracy in Botswana.

Whereas Sir Ketumile Masire has been involved in politics in

his country since he co-founded the Bechuanaland Democratic Party (later the Botswana Democratic Party) with

Seretse Khama in 1962;

Whereas Sir Ketumile Masire was elected to Botswana’s first

Parliament in 1965, later became Vice President under

President Seretse Khama, and succeeded President

Khama as President upon his death in 1980;

Whereas under President Masire’s administration Botswana

has maintained a successful multiparty constitutional democracy with regular free and fair elections;

Whereas President Masire plans to retire from the presidency

on March 31, 1998;
2

•HRES 373 IH

Whereas the Government of Botswana has worked constructively with the Organization of African Unity, the Southern African Development Community, and other organizations to promote democracy in Africa;

Whereas Botswana is a long standing friend of the United

States and was selected as the site of a major Voice of

America radio relay station because of its stability; and

Whereas President Clinton plans to enhance United States

relations with Botswana through an upcoming official

visit to Botswana: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) commends the people of Botswana for their

3 commitment to democracy;

4 (2) commends Sir Ketumile Masire for his long

5 and distinguished service to his country and the

6 cause of democracy in Africa;

7 (3) calls on President Masire’s successor to

8 pursue the course set by President Masire by main9 taining a democratic Botswana;

10 (4) calls on the Government of Botswana to

11 continue playing a positive role in African and world

12 affairs; and

13 (5) encourages the Government of Botswana to

14 continue promoting peace, democracy, respect for

15 human rights, and economic reform in Africa.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2069

RICHARD MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE CITY POLICE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-02430-GJH)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Martin appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

(2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Martin challenges the district court’s 

conclusion that his claims were untimely. Martin’s claims, 

whether brought under state law or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), were 

subject to, at longest, a three-year statute of limitations. 

See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general 

civil statute of limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 

§ 5-105 (2013) (actions for assault and defamation); Owens v. 

Balt. City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir. 

2014) (§ 1983 claims), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1893 (2015). 

While Martin’s malicious prosecution claim has not yet accrued, 

this claim is barred by his inability to meet the favorable 

termination requirement. See Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56, 59 

(Md. 2000). Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged 

in the complaint demonstrate that his remaining claims accrued, 

at the latest, by the time he was released from prison, and the 

limitations period was not subject to tolling. See A Soc’y 

Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(accrual under § 1983); Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 43 

A.3d 1029, 1034-34, 1039-41 (Md. 2012) (discussing accrual and 

tolling under state law); see also Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Raleigh, 
3

947 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (4th Cir. 1991) (describing continuing 

violations doctrine). Finally, because Martin’s claims were 

properly dismissed, the district court committed no error in 

denying as moot Martin’s request to file electronically.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
      12.1
  Statement
Setting Forth Detail for Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges
 (dollars
in thousands)
  Year
      Ended December 31,2004
                  
                  
                  2005
                  
                  
                  2006
                  
                  
                  2007
                  
                  
                  2008Fixed
      chargesInterest
      expense
                  
                  $
                  4,807
                  
                  
                  $
                  17,729
                  
                  
                  $
                  20,082
                  
                  
                  $
                  21,738
                  
                  
                  $
                  21,808EarningsIncome
      before income taxes
                  
                  
                  10,074
                  
                  
                  
                  3,246
                  
                  
                  
                  2,802
                  
                  
                  
                  (195
                  )
                  
                  
                  243Add:
      Interest expense
                  
                  
                  4,807
                  
                  
                  
                  17,729
                  
                  
                  
                  20,082
                  
                  
                  
                  21,738
                  
                  
                  
                  21,808Total
      earnings
                  
                  
                  14,881
                  
                  
                  
                  20,975
                  
                  
                  
                  22,884
                  
                  
                  
                  21,543
                  
                  
                  
                  22,051Ratio
      of earnings to fixed charges
                  
                  
                  3.1
                  
                  
                  
                  1.2
                  
                  
                  
                  1.1
                  
                  
                  
                  1.0
                  
                  
                  
                  1.0
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 Quarterly Report of United PanAm Financial Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garland Koch, certify in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of
the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of May 4, 2006.



/s/    GARLAND KOCHGarland KochChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
* 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. 96-11240

_____________________

FRANKIE MATHIS, on behalf of Brandie Mathis, on behalf of Andre Ramel Mathis, on behalf of Brittney Mathis, on behalf of Chester Andre Mathis, Individually and as next friend of Brandie Mathis, Andre Ramel Mathis, and Brittney Math is, Minors, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chester Andre Mathis, Deceased

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
KEVIN D DAVIS, Individually

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

3:95-CV-477-D

_________________________________________________________________ July 28, 1997 Before KING, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After carefully reviewing the record and the district

court’s order denying summary judgment in this case, we conclude

that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there are

genuine issues of material fact. Johnson v. Jones , 115 S. Ct.

2151 (1996). Therefore, we DISMISS the appeal for lack ofjurisdiction.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WHAM-O HOLDING, LTD. and 

INTERSPORT CORP. d/b/a WHAM-O,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03761

Judge Manish S. Shah

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

96 lifefor4u**

DATED: October 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03761 Document #: 62 Filed: 10/19/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7903
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on October 19, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03761 Document #: 62 Filed: 10/19/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:7904
#### Commonwealth for use of O. C. Bowles *v.*W. P. Johnson, etc.

Sheriffs and Constable — Failure to Return Execution — Official Bond— Suit on.

The bond sued on in this case was executed in the year 1866. The failure to return the execution complained of did not occur until August, 1867. It will be presumed that the sheriff entered upon his second term in January, 1867, and that the county court required him to execute a new bond at the time. This suit should have been brought on the last-named bond.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1871.

*202
      *Burns, for appellant.*

*Apperson, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The bond sued on in this case was executed in the year 1866. The failure to return the execution complained of did not occur until August, 1867. We must presume that Johnson entered upon his second term as sheriff in January, 1867, as provided by the Constitution, and that the county court of Pike county in pursuance to law required 'him to execute an official bond at that time. The suit should have been upon that bond and not on the one made the basis of this action.

The relief sought was a statutory penalty, and as the action was founded on the wrong bond no judgment could be rendered even against the sheriff. The demurrer to the petition was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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





I,
      Charles E. Ramey, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the
      “Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) 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 US Dataworks,
      Inc.





Dated:
      November 14, 2008





/s/
                Charles E. RameyCharles
                E. RameyChief
                Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Francis Reddy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/freddy\/","title":"NASA Looks Back at 50 Years of Gamma-Ray Burst Science","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SmeLmeBCK0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/universe\/nasa-looks-back-at-50-years-of-gamma-ray-burst-science\/\">NASA Looks Back at 50 Years of Gamma-Ray Burst Science<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/universe\/nasa-looks-back-at-50-years-of-gamma-ray-burst-science\/embed\/#?secret=SmeLmeBCK0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Looks Back at 50 Years of Gamma-Ray Burst Science” — NASA\" data-secret=\"SmeLmeBCK0\" 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\/06\/grb-wfc3ir-mstr-crop-final-circled-2160.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":665}
ADA 1088

Comments:

There were NO Public Comments on this standard.

Therefore, there are no comment files, adjudication files, or QIC approvals.
#### STORY v. CENTRAL CAROLINA CLEANING CORP.

No. 53P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 214

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard S. Kay, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiods covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;     The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.         Date: December 18, 2007     /s/ Richard S. Kay               Name: Richard S. Kay      Title: Chief Financial Officer