alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos MARTINEZ-GOMEZ, aka Augustin Gonzales Dias; aka Miguel Cruz Gomez; aka Carlos Martinez; aka Miguel Coronado-Gomez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-50239.

D.C. No. CR-98-01233-MMM-1.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2001.*

Decided May 15, 2001.

Before RYMER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Martinez-Gomez appeals his conviction, following a conditional guilty plea, on one count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.

Martinez-Gomez collaterally attacks the prior deportation order upon which his conviction rested, contending that his expedited administrative removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 was an adjudication by a biased judge and should not be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution. This argument is foreclosed by *499our recent decision in *United States v. Garcia-Martinez,*228 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.2000).

In *Garcia-Martinez,*the defendant challenged the use of his prior expedited administrative removal as an element of his § 1326 offense on the ground that the removal proceeding was conducted by an inherently biased adjudicator. *Id.*at 960. Rejecting this contention, we held that neither the institutional structure of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) nor the fact that the deciding INS officer regularly investigated and prosecuted immigration offenses established bias. *Id.*at 960-63. In light of this decision, Martinez-Gomez’s first claim lacks merit.

Martinez-Gomez also contends that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence on the basis of prior convictions for aggravated felonies that were not charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is barred by our recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000). In *Pacheco-Zepeda,*we held that, pursuant to *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the district court may consider prior aggravated felony convictions when sentencing a defendant under § 1326, even if such conduct has not been charged in the indictment, presented to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. *Id.*at 414-45. Accordingly, the district court did not err in sentencing Martinez-Gomez to forty-six months.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is inappropriate 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.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Shepperd.

Intoxicating Liquors — Indictment for Keeping Tippling House.

An indictment for keeping a tippling house held sufficient whether drawn under the Revised Statutes or under the Act of March 21, 1871.

APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

June 5, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

In the case of Commonwealth v. Harvey, 16 B. Mon. 1, this court held that in an indictment for keeping a tippling-house, it was not necessary to negative the existence of such facts as under the *711statute authorized the sale of liquors to be drunk on or adjacent to the premises of the party selling.

*Rodman & Lee, for appellant.*

*F. P. Strauss, for appellee.*

In the case of Creekmore v. The Commonwealth, 5 Bush 311, it was held, that the averment that the person indicted kept a tippling-house, was sufficient, without singling out in detail the concurrent facts necessary, under the statute, to constitute that offense. These indictments are therefore good under the general laws in force in the state at the time they were returned by the grand jury.

The act of March 21, 1871, Sess. Acts 1871, Vol. 2, p. 321, declares that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell intoxicating liquors in Bullitt County, in any quantity, except that manufacturers and wholesale dealers may sell in quantities not less than forty gallons. If the charge of keeping a tippling-house imported the unlawful selling of spirituous liquors, under the revised statutes, as held in the case of Creekmore, it is manifest that the same result must follow such a charge under the provisions of the act of March 21, 1871.

It seems, therefore, that the indictments under consideration are good, whether the commonwealth is- proceeding under the revised statutes, or the said act of March 21, 1871. The judgment, in the case sustaining the demurrers and quashing the indictment, is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
##### 



Exhibit 32.B 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/A for the period ending
December 31, 2004, of ANR Pipeline Company (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg G.
Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Greg G. GruberGreg G. GruberSenior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer) 
 
November 15, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ANR Pipeline Company and will be retained by ANR Pipeline Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Patricia Lowe, Appellant

No. 06-20-00043-CV v.

Brookshire Grocery Company, Appellee

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CV43829). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice 

Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the summary judgment of 

the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Patricia Lowe, pay all costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 27, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         425,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,973,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,530,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,095,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,100
<BONDS>                                      1,340,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,642,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,095,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               298,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
#### John Fox and W. U. Stevens *v.*David Brown and Wife.

Judicial Sales — Purchaser—Jurisdiction of Chancellor.

■Where a purchaser under a judgment was not a party to the suit, the purchase does not subject him to the jurisdiction of the chan*254-cellor further than is necessary to enforce the performance of his agreement as an accepted bidder.

Judicial Sales — Rule andi Attachment.

One who. was not a party to the record either as a litigant, purchaser, bondsman, attorney or officer of the court, is not liable to be proceeded against by the summary proceeding of rule and attachment.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 27, 1873.

*Bullock & Beckham, for appellants.*

*Caldwell & Harsood, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Stephens was not a party to the suit of Brown and wife against Fox. His purchase under the first judgment did not subject him to the jurisdiction of the chancellor, further than was necessary to enforce the performance of his agreement as an accepted bidder. It is. immaterial whether, he purchased the lands subject to the payment of the disputed balance then being litigated by Brown and wife and Fox, or without any such incumbrance. It is certain that he did not incur any personal liability to Brown and wife; nor did he in any sense place himself under any obligations to the chancellor to perform a judgment to. be subsequently rendered in the cause as to the disputed balance; nor did his sale to a third party change his relationship to. the parties litigant, or deprive him of any legal or equitable right. It results’, therefore, that in the last judgment rendered against Fox, 'Stevens was not a party to the record, either as a litigant, purchaser, bondsman, attorney, or officer of the court, and hence not liable to be proceeded against by the summary proceeding of rule and attachment.

The judgment against him must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the rule. No error is perceived in the judgment from which Fox appeals. It is therefore affirmed.
10216, 10217.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Moore; and *vice versa.*

Decided February 7, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Blakely—Judge Sheffield. October 21, 1918.

*Pottle & Hofmayer, A. II. Gray, L. M. Bambo,*for the railway company.

*Glessner <& Collins,*contra.

Smith, J.

1. “Where a, person driving a motor-truck on a public highway over a railroad crossing is struck by a passenger-train and injured, the mere fact that the vehicle has not been registered in the office of the secretary of State, and a license obtained, and a license fee paid as required under Georgia Laws, Ex. Sess. 1915, p. 107, will not render the person so injured a trespasser, and bar his right of recovery against the railroad company for negligence.” *Central of Georgia Railway Co.*v. *Moore,*149 *Ga.*581 (101 S. E. 668). This ruling was made by the Supreme Court in answer to a question certified to that court by this court, and overrules the holding in *Knight*v. *Savannah Electric Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*314 (93 S. E. 17).

2. Those grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial which are not specifically abandoned disclose no reversible error; and, there being evidence to support the verdict, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment on main hill of exceptions affirmed; oross-hill dismissed.*

*Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
**Exhibit32.2**

 

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

 

I, Jeffrey J. Fox,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of WillametteValley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10-QSBfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

 
| Date: November 14, 2007 |
|-------------------------|
| By:                     | /s/  Jeffrey J. Fox |   |
| Name: Jeffery J. Fox    |
| Title:                  | Controller |
|                         |  |  |  |

 

1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-55-2014]

On July 31, 2014, the City of Mesa, grantee of FTZ 221, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Apple Inc./GTAT Corp., within Subzone 221A, in Mesa, Arizona.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 47088-47089, 8-12-2014). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: November 28, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28582 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549




                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT


     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) OCTOBER 12, 1998




                                  AMRESCO, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)







         DELAWARE                     001-11599                  59-1781257
(State or other jurisdiction         (Commission               (IRS Employer
    of incorporation)                File Number)            Identification No.)




                             700 NORTH PEARL STREET
                               SUITE 2400, LB 342
                               DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
               (Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)



       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (214) 953-7700




<PAGE>   2




ITEM 5.           OTHER EVENTS.

         On October 12, 1998, AMRESCO, INC. (the "Company") completed the sale
of approximately $936 million of commercial mortgage loans.

         On October 19, 1998, the Company completed the sale of approximately
$1.0 billion of home equity loans and entered into a commitment to sell
approximately $400 million of additional home equity loans.

ITEM 7.           FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

                  (c)      EXHIBITS
                           99.1     Press Release dated October 12, 1998.
                           99.2     Press Release dated October 19, 1998.

                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                       AMRESCO, INC.

Date: October 21, 1998                 By: /s/ L. KEITH BLACKWELL
                                           ------------------------
                                           Name:  L. Keith Blackwell
                                           Title: Senior Vice President, 
                                                  General Counsel and Secretary




                                       -2-

<PAGE>   3



                                  EXHIBIT INDEX
                                  -------------

Item No.          Description
-------           -----------

99.1              Press Release dated October 12, 1998.
99.2              Press Release dated October 19, 1998.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PHARES SYLINCE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3081

[ December 7, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg

Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005CF001981A

.

Phares Sylince, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

FRAMEWORK

Protect & Defend

Investigate

UNDERSERVED

COMMUNITIES

INTERSTATE

Securely Provision

EDUCATION

BOUNDLESS

OPPORTUNITIES

TRAINING

WORK-BASED

LEARNING

MANY

ROUTES

MANY

ON-RAMPS

Multiple Pathways

to a Career in

Cybersecurity

The pathways to – and through – a career in

cybersecurity are truly innumerable, beginning with

a wide array of starting points, moving through

countless combinations of education, training, and

learning experiences, and leading to a broad range

of job opportunities. It is a field brimming with

practitioners from different educational and

professional backgrounds and one that counts

workforce diversity as integral to its success.

nist.gov/nice

Welcome to cybersecurity! Discover your pathway.

Oversee & Govern

Operate & Maintain

STUDENTS

INTERSTATE

VETERANS

INTERSTATE

RE-ENTERING

WORKERS

INTERSTATE

CAREER

TRANSITIONERS

INTERSTATE
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of mineralization or resources and other analyses performed by us in our capacity
as an independent consultant to Mines Management, Inc. (the "Company"), which are set forth in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, in
the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-125701, 333-104724 and 333-152732) and Forms S-3 (File
Nos. 333-162555, 333-148069, 333-129784 and 333-114258), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or
supplements thereto. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statements and any prospectuses.

Mine Development Associates, Inc./s/ STEVE RISTORCELLI Name: Steve Ristorcelli
Title: Authorized Person


March 31,
2010

---



QuickLinks
##### 



MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Twelve Months Ended December 31(Millions of Dollars)
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    
    64
    
    
    $
    (1
    )
    
    $
    10
    
    
    $
    45
    
    
    $
    32Adjustments
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    69
    
    
    
    59
    
    
    
    59
    
    
    
    58
    
    
    
    62Net earnings
    
    
    133
    
    
    $
    60
    
    
    $
    66
    
    
    $
    103
    
    
    $
    94Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    67
    
    
    $
    57
    
    
    $
    57
    
    
    $
    57
    
    
    $
    60Adjustments
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2Fixed charges
    
    
    69
    
    
    $
    59
    
    
    $
    59
    
    
    $
    58
    
    
    $
    62Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.93
    
    
    
    1.02
    
    
    
    1.12
    
    
    
    1.77
    
    
    
    1.53
 56
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 on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lowell W.
Giffhorn, 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 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, as amended;
  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:
      February 18, 2011
              /s/LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
      W. GiffhornChief
      Financial Officer