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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 May 6, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41445 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ADOLFO MORENO-RIOS, also known as Juan Herrera-Martinez, also known as Jesus Felix Sustaita, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. L-00-CV-100 L-97-CR-149-1

-------------------- Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Adolfo Moreno-Rios, federal prisoner number 71268-079, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). An examination of the record in this case disclosesNo. 03-41445 -2- that no final judgment has been entered as a separate document as required by F ED . R. C IV . P. 58. See Baker v. Mercedes Benz of N.

Am. , 114 F.3d 57, 60 (5th Cir. 1997). If we were to treat the order of May 31, 2001, as a Rule 58 judgment, Moreno’s pro se notice of appeal, which is stamped as filed on April 14, 2002, is untimely. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1). Moreover, both the motions to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal or to extend time to file a notice of appeal are nullities, as neither meet the requirements of F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5) or (6). See Wilkens v. Johnson , 238 F.3d 328, 330-31 (5th Cir. 2001). Because, under the peculiar facts of this case, it would be unjust to apply the amendments to F ED . R. C IV . P. 58 effective December 1, 2002, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed pursuant to the procedure set out in Townsend v. Lucas , 745 F.2d 933, 934 (5th Cir. 1984). See Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 258-59 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreno may rectify the lack of a separate document judgment by filing in the district court a motion requesting the entry of a Rule 58 judgment. See id. After a Rule 58 judgment is entered, a new notice of appeal must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1). See id.

APPEAL DISMISSED; COA DENIED AS MOOT.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40309

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID BRYAN SPRATT,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-216

- - - - - - - - - -

November 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Bryan Spratt, federal prisoner # 04999-078, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to

vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. On September 9,

1997, this court granted COA on the issue “whether counsel was

ineffective in advising Spratt to stipulate to a quantity of 137

marijuana plants without investigating whether fewer than 100 of

them had `roots, a root ball, or root hairs’ to qualify as

`plants’ under the sentencing guidelines.” Spratt argues that 
No. 97-40309

-2-

his counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to argue that

some of the marijuana cuttings did not constitute “plants”

because they did not have roots, a root ball, or root hairs. 

Spratt also argues that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s error

because his counsel’s stipulation that there were over 100 plants

caused him to be subject to a five-year mandatory minimum

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(10(B)(vii). He contends that

but for his counsel’s error, he would have received a

significantly less harsh sentence. Spratt did not present any

evidence in the district court which established that some of the

marijuana did not have roots, a root ball, or root hairs and thus

did not constitute “plants” under § 2D1.1. There is only

speculation that some of marijuana did not constitute “plants”

under § 2D1.1. Therefore, Spratt has not demonstrated that he

was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged error in stipulating to

the number of marijuana plants. 

Spratt has filed a motion to remand the case to the district

court for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Spratt has not

shown that an evidentiary hearing would add any additional

evidence to the record to support his claim as the marijuana has

been destroyed. Therefore, Spratt’s motion to remand the case

for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO REMAND CASE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         150,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,186
<INVENTORY>                                     62,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               622,095
<PP&E>                                       3,922,856
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,409,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,793,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          456,543
<BONDS>                                      1,219,141
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          504,993
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,128,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,793,550
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,176,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,023,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,580)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,733
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             90,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00110-JBF-JEB)

Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Edward Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Willie Edward Johnson appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2)(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. United States v. Johnson , No. 2:04-cr00110-JBF-JEB (E.D. Va. June 24, 2008).

We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 13466-003]

                    On October 18, 2011, the Commission issued an Order Granting Exemption from Licensing (Conduit) [1]                                          to the City of Gresham (exemptee) for the proposed City of Gresham Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13466. The small conduit hydropower project would be located at the exemptee's Wastewater Treatment Plant, in Multnomah County, Oregon.                

On October 21, 2014, the exemptee filed an application with the Commission to surrender the exemption. The exemptee has reevaluated the economics of the project and has decided not to move forward with construction of the project, citing insufficient economic returns and cheaper alternatives in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Accordingly, the Commission accepts the exemptee's surrender of its exemption from licensing, effective 30 days from the date of this notice, at the close of business on Thursday, December 18, 2014. No license, exemption, or preliminary permit applications for the project site may be filed until Friday, December 19, 2014.

Dated: November 19, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                                                     *City of Gresham*, 137 FERC ¶ 62,053 (2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2014-28013 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Order entered June 8, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 01184 - CV PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant

V. SALLY JOANN REAVES, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judi cial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 16 - 04118



### O RDER Before the Court is appell ee ’s June 7, 2018 unopposed motion for extension of time to file an amended brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to July 18, 2018

. /s/ A DA BROWN JUSTICE
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  have  issued  our  report  dated   February   13,   2004,   except  for  the
reclassification of certain  discontinued  operations  described in Note 2 as to
which the date is February 25, 2005,  accompanying  the  consolidated  financial
statements  and schedules  included in the Annual Report of United Capital Corp.
and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2004. We hereby
consent to the  incorporation  by reference  of said report in the  Registration
Statements of United  Capital Corp. on Forms S-8  (Registration  Nos.  33-28045,
33-65140, 333-28395,  333-57873 and 333-98645) and on Form S-3 (Registration No.
333-119807).

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville, New York
March 21, 2005
```
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  Magnitude  Information
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006
(the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  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,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB,  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  August 18, 2006                 /s/ Joerg H.Klaube
                                        --------------------------
                                        Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

May 22, 2013

p0515

Order 

May 22, 2013

146344

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146344

COA: 311602

Jackson CC: 11-004850-FH

FREDERICK DEBER WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4535 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 208. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment 

Red 208. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 208. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.27 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2002’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2006’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 January 1, 2003. 

Æ
* 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

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51307

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENJAMIN CALVILLO-PONCE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-428-1-FB

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Benjamin Calvillo-Ponce 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. 

Calvillo-Ponce contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Calvillo-Ponce maintains that he
No. 02-51307

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

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. 

Calvillo-Ponce 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**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| November 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/       David A. Wheat                                                                      |   |
|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)            |   | David A. Wheat

Director, Executive Vice President, and

Chief Financial Officer

  |   |

 

 

 

----
No. 87-6424.

#### Hannivig *v.*Reagan, President of the United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statements of Financial Condition for Metaline Mining & Leasing Company
at December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,103
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,716
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,072
<OTHER-SE>                                    (162,642)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,146
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (119)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (33,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33,951)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        









</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MENTOR
CORPORATION



Subsidiary
    State of Incorporation
      or OrganizationAMI, LLC (merged into Selene Corporation  6/30/2003)
    CaliforniaA-Life Inc.
    CaliforniaA-Life Ltd.
    ScotlandBiopolymers (Scotland) Limited
    ScotlandByron Medical, Inc.
    ArizonaInform Solutions Inc.
    CaliforniaHavas Medical, B.V. (merged into Mentor
      Benelux   B.V. 11/17/97)MDI Company Ltd.
    BermudaMentor 1983 Research Limited Partnership
         (dissolved 6/14/00)Mentor Aesthetics B.V.
    NetherlandsMentor Benelux B.V.
    NetherlandsMentor Biopolymers Limited
    United KingdomMentor Caribe, Inc. (Dissolved 12/31/99)
    DelawareMentor Deutschland GmbH
    GermanyMentor International Holdings Alpha, Inc.
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Beta, Inc.
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Camda, Inc.
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Delta, Inc.
    DelawareMentor International Sales Corporation
    U.S. Virgin IslandsMentor International, EURL
    FranceMentor International, LLC
    DelawareMentor Japan K.K. (dissolved)Mentor Medical Inc.
    DelawareMentor Medical Italia, S.r.l.
    ItalyMentor Medical Limited (U.K.)
    EnglandMentor Medical Systems (Canada), Inc.
    CanadaMentor Medical Systems B.V.
    NetherlandsMentor Medical Systems Ltd. (U.K.)
    EnglandMentor Medical Systems Pty. Ltd.
    AustraliaMentor Medical Systems, C.V.
    NetherlandsMentor Medical Systems, France, S.A.
    FranceMentor Medical Systems, Iberica, S.L.
    SpainMentor Minnesota Inc. (Formerly Mentor Urology, Inc.)
    DelawareMentor Ophthalmics, Inc. (Formerly Mentor O&O, Inc.) (Dissolved
      12/31/99)
    MassachusettsMentor ORC, Inc. (Dissolved 4/1/96)
    DelawareMentor Polymer Technologies Company
    TexasMentor Texas LP (Formerly Mentor H/S, Inc).
    DelawareMills Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
    OklahomaPorges (Belgium)
    BelgiumPorges (Netherlands)
    NetherlandsPorges Co, Ltd.
    JapanPorges GmbH
    GermanyPorges S.A.
    FrancePorges S.L.
    SpainPorges S.R.L.
    ItalyPorges U.K. Ltd
    EnglandPorges, Lda
    PortugalSelene Corporation
    CaliforniaSierra Laboratories, Inc. (dissolved 3/20/02)
    ArizonaTeknar Corporation (dissolved 4/1/96)
    Missouri