alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 8

- 5 0 7 4 7 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. F R E D E R I C K B R A N C H , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 7 : 9 1

- C R

- 6 3

- 1

B e f o r e K I N G , B E N A V I D E S , a n d P R A D O , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t F r e d e r i c k B r a n c h h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. B r a n c h h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 8 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 08-50747 Document: 00511315062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
11347.

#### Conner *v.*Farmers & Merchants Bank of Brewton.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Dublin — Judge Flynt. January 30, 1930.

The bill of exceptions states that “the only question of law presented and passed upon by the court was whether or not the document in evidence was a mortgage, or a bill of sale passing title so that bail-trover would lie.” In the document in question the form of a deed of bargain and sale conveying title to personal property is followed by the statement that “This conveyance is intended to operate as provided in sections 3771, 3775, and 5433 of the Civil Code in regard to the sale of property to secure debts and pass the title of the property described into the said Farmers and Merchants Bank, Brewton, Ga. (a bond to reconvey said property in terms of the statute having been executed contemporaneously herewith, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the said maker), the debt hereby evidenced and secured being,” etc., specifying the debt. The action was by the Farmers and Merchants Bank against the maker of this instrument; a verdict was rendered against the defendant, and, her motion for a new trial being overruled, she excepted.

*W. A. Dampier, J. A. Merritt,*for plaintiff in error, cited *Stokes,*v. *Hollis,*43 *Ga.*262-263.

*Larsen & Crochett,*contra, cited *Ellison*v. *Wilson,*7 *Ga. App.*314.

Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision in the case of *Owens*v. *Bridges,*13 *Ga. App.*419 (1) (79 S. E. 225), and cases cited. The judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff was proper, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
* 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

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10221

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JESUS MUNOZ-REYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-00057-ALL-C

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Jesus Munoz-Reya 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. 

Munoz-Reya 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. Munoz-Reya maintains that he
No. 03-10221

-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 maximum sentence 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. 

Munoz-Reya 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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-10484

Summary Calendar

_______________________

CHARLIE LEWIS McGHEE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-1037-X)

_________________________________________________________________

August 29, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant McGhee, sentenced to life imprisonment in the

Texas Department of Corrections after a finding that he violated his

deferred-adjudication probation, raises five issues on appeal. Each

of these issues was carefully discussed by the magistrate judge, and

we have little to add to his opinion.
2

In an abundance of caution, however, this court granted CPC

and asked the parties particularly to brief whether McGhee’s due

process rights were violated by the trial court’s alleged imposition

of a predetermined sentence, and whether due process required the

court to hold a separate sentencing hearing after revoking McGhee’s

probation. In regard to the first of these issues, we note the state

court’s statement, when it ruled on McGhee’s habeas petition, that she

sentenced him to life imprisonment because of the offense he had

committed and the additional two burglaries that he committed within

one week of receiving a deferred adjudication. Neither in the

district court nor in this court has McGhee offered evidence or

persuasive argument why the federal courts should not defer to this

finding of historical fact by the state habeas court. The state judge

said she did not impose a “predetermined sentence” on McGhee following

his breach of probation. Like the magistrate judge, we conclude that

finding is supported by the record of the state court proceedings. 

As for McGhee’s second complaint that he was entitled to a

separate sentencing hearing, additional briefing shows that argument

to be meritless. To the extent it relies on an alleged violation of

Texas law, that is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. On

the other hand, McGhee cites no federal law creating an entitlement

to a separate hearing in these circumstances. For this court to craft

one in a collateral proceeding would violate the Teague rule of nonretroactivity.
3

For these reasons, and those assigned by the magistrate

judge, this court affirms the denial of habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF 

DUALITY MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

CERTIFICADO DE APROBACION 

DEL SISTEMA DE GESTION DE 

LA CALIDA □ 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

LASER-BASED 

The Quality Management System supporting the above 

capabilities has been reviewed under the authority of the InterAmerican Metrology System and found to be in compliance 

with the requirement of the CIPM Mutual Recognition 

Arrangement to operate a Quality Management System based 

on ISO /IEC 1702 5 and / or ISO Guide 34. 

Approval date: 1 April 2019 

Expiry date: 2 April 2024 

RADIOMETRY 

El Sistema de Gesti6n de la Calidad en que se apoyan las capacidades 

arriba mencionadas ha sido evaluado bajo los terminos del mandato 

del Sistema Interamericano de Metrologfa y se ha determinado que 

cumple con los requisitos de! Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo de! 

CIPM de implementar un Sistema de Gesti6n de la Calidad basado en 

la norma ISO / IEC 17025 y/ o ISO Guia 34. 

Claire Saundry, President, SIM 

Georg2 e Macdonald, Chair, SIM Quality System Task Force
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

November 8,2010

 

Securitiesand Exchange Commission

4505th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

 

I,Thomas H. Ehrlich, Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofUranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,2010, which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/* Thomas H. Ehrlich                     | * * |
|---------------------------------------------|----------|
| Thomas  H. Ehrlich                          |     |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |     |
| November 8,  2010                      |     |

 

----
#### Commonwealth *v.*Robt. Green.

Receiving Stolen Goods — .Indictment—Felonious Intent.

An indictment for receiving stolen goods should allege that the goods were received with felonious intent.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

June 6, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The statute provides that whoever shall receive stolen goods, the stealing whereof is punished as a felony or misdemeanor, knowing *717the same to be stolen, shall 'be confined in the penitentiary .not less than one nor more than six years; such offenders may be convicted though the principal offender has not been convicted. 1 Rev. Stat. 390. It is alleged in the indictment that the goods were stolen from the storehouse of Jos. Wallingford, in Mason County, by some person or persons unknown to the grand jury. The goods are also minutely described and their value stated. It is further alleged that the accused received the goods, knowing them to have been stolen. A demurrer was sustained to’ the indictment, from which the commonwealth has appealed. The indictment follows' the language of the statute; still, something else must be alleged and proven in order to constitute crime. It was not intended by the Legislature. that the mere acception of stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, should constitute a felony. The goods must be received with a felonious intent, either for the purpose of appropriating them to the use of the one in possession, or of secreting them for the party committing the larceny. There is no allegation in the indictment that the party, in receiving the stolen goods, intended to commit a felony. He might have received them for the purpose of securing the property for the real owner. The goods might have been delivered to. the accused by one who had captured them from the *thief;*and whilst the possession of stolen goods, unexplained, would be sufficient to convict, still the jury must be told not only that the party obtained the possession knowing that they had been stolen, but that he obtained them with a felonious intent, that is, to deprive the real owner of his property. 2 Archbold 655. In the case of Commonwealth v. Stout, 7 B. Monroe 247, the accused was indicted, in the language of the act, for attempting to remove from the state a woman of color during the pendency of an action for her freedom. The court held the indictment bad on demurrer, as there was no allegation that the accused knew of the pendency of the suit when he attempted to- remove Nancy from the state. Facts necessary to constitute an offense must be charged, and the indictment failing to do this, the demurrer was properly sustained.

-, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*
AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (9668)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

JOHNNY CHARLES WATKINS, JR. CASE NUMBER: 1:08-CR-00111-001

a/k/a Hawk USM NUMBER: 10256-003

THE DEFENDANT: Christopher Knight, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision conditions: 7 & Statutory as set forth in the petition 

dated 3/30/2015 

was found in violation of supervision condition: 

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

7

Statutory

Technical

New Offense 10/17/14, 12/2/14, &

12/16/14

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is 

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, 

costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Social Security No. 5564

Defendant's Date of Birth: 1973

Defendant's Residence Address:

Thomasville, AL

__________________________

Defendant's Mailing Address:

___________________________

___________________________

April 22, 2015

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April, 28, 2015

Date

X

Case 1:08-cr-00111-CG-C Document 41 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: JOHNNY CHARLES WATKINS, JR., a/k/a Hawk

Case Number: 1:08-CR-00111-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of SIXTY (60) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau 

of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 1:08-cr-00111-CG-C Document 41 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.16


               Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Directors

Directors of Nashua Corporation who are also company employees receive no
additional or special compensation for serving as directors.

Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for Nashua
Corporation's non-employee directors:

     Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $60,000, payable
     in quarterly installments. Nashua also pays non-employee directors $1,000
     in cash plus expenses for each Board meeting or Board committee meeting
     they attend. Nashua's Lead Director receives an additional $7,500 in cash,
     the Chairman of the Audit/Finance and Investment Committee receives an
     additional $2,500 in cash and the Chairman of the Leadership and
     Compensation Committee receives an additional $1,500 in cash.

     Each non-employee director is also entitled to receive an annual stock
     option award to purchase 5,000 shares of Nashua's common stock with an
     exercise price equal to the fair market value of such shares on the date of
     award under the provisions of Nashua's stock plans. However, due to the
     limited number of shares available under Nashua's stock plans, non-employee
     directors may receive a cash payment in lieu of such stock options, at the
     discretion of the Board of Directors.
11574.

#### Stanford *v.*The State.

Decided July 13, 1920.

Accusation of gaming; from city court of Macon—-Judge Guerry. April 20, 1920.

*John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Will Gunn, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this ease contains the usual general grounds only; there is direct evidence of the guilt of the accused, and the judgment must be

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 28, 2010

0127 

# Order

January 28, 2010

137111 (147)

ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley Ann Pellegrino, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137111 COA: 274743 Wayne CC: 03-325462-NI AMPCO SYSTEMS PARKING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to st rike portions of the defendant’s brief on appeal is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         692,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  959,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,672,132
<PP&E>                                       4,356,549
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,275,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,582,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,633,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       237,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,985,636
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,515,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,582,361
<SALES>                                      3,159,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,159,385
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,613,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,014,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             249,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                302,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,820,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,122,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,122,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03 
        

</TABLE>