alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50124.

D.C. No. CR-99-01102-TJH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.1

Decided June 1, 2001.

*598Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Jimenez appeals the 44-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation. Rodriguez-Jimenez contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), his sentence must be vacated because it exceeds the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based upon a prior felony to which he did not admit and which was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Rodriguez-Jimenez also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense), because he did not admit that his removal from the United States was subsequent to his conviction of an aggravated felony. His arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *amended*(Feb. 8, 2001) (order). *United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir.2001).3

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

. We deny as moot defendant's request to stay this appeal pending the outcome of *Pacheco-Zepeda.*
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 State

          - [Public Notice 8969]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “Visiting Masterpiece: Gustav Klimt's Adam and Eve,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the imported object at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, from on or about January 17, 2015, until on or about April 27, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a description of the imported object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: December 4, 2014.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-29275 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
11263.

#### Roddenberry *et al. v.*Fouche.

Smith, J.

1. Although a mortgage is not sufficient to sustain an action of trover (Civil Code, § 3256; *Horton*v. *Murden,*117 *Ga.*72, 43 S. E. 786), the instrument which is the basis of this trover suit was in all respects in the form of a bill of sale reserving title to the personalty sold, and cannot properly be treated as a mortgage merely because it contains the following clause: “ As soon as the said first party shall pay or cause to be paid all of the aforesaid notes as they become due, then and in that event title to the said Eord automobile car shall become hers, and the said party of the second part agrees that upon the payment as aforesaid of said notes to make to the said party of the first part a warranty title to the said Ford car.” See *Pitts*v. *Maier,*115 *Ga.*281 (1) (41 S. E. 570), reviewing and overruling *Frost*v. *Allen.*57 *Ga.*326, and *Pirkle*v. *Mortgage Co.,*99 *Ga.*524 (28 S. E. 34).

2. Where a deed or bill of sale described tlie property sold as “ one Eord automobile that the said party of the first part has this day pur*149ehased of the said party of the second part,” and an action of trover was brought by the seller to recover the automobile from two parties who had purchased it from the original buyer, it was not error, upon the trial of the case, to overrule an objection by the defendants to the admission in evidence of this instrument on the ground that the property sued for was not sufficiently described therein. The case of *Thomas Furniture Co.*v. *T.*& *C. Furniture Co.,*120 *Ga.*879 (48 S. E. 333), is controlling on this question. See also *Farkas*v. *Duncan,*94 *Ga.*27 (20 S. E. 267); *Nichols*v. *Hampton,*46 *Ga.*253; *Beaty*v. *Sears,*132 *Ga.*516 (1) (64 S. E. 321). The case of *Reynolds*v. *Tifton Guano Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*49 (92 S. E. 389), is not in conflict with anything here ruled, for in that case the description properly held to be legally insufficient was clearly too general, vague, indefinite and uncertain to claim the aid of extrinsic parol evidence.

Decided April 8, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Brunswick — Judge Krauss. December *20,*1919.

*Conyers & Wilcox,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Robert W. Durden, Frank H. Harris,*contra.

3. The charge of the court was free from reversible error, there was evidence to authorize the verdict returned, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Order entered October 26, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00645-CV

ALVESTER COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

PETRO-HUNT LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-13807

ORDER

Appellant filed his brief on the merits on July 2, 2020, before the reporter’s 

record was filed. The brief did not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.1, and on September 9, 2020, after the reporter’s record 

was filed, we ordered appellant to file a brief in compliance with the rule within 

thirty days. To date, he has failed to do so. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal 

submitted on appellant’s July 2nd brief. We DENY as moot appellee’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal based on appellant’s failure to file a compliant brief.
As appellee has filed its brief, the appeal will be submitted in due course. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
ADDENDUM TO ROYALTY AGREEMENT


This is an addendum to the Royalty Agreement between Wimax EU Ltd (WEL) and
Eurotech Capital Ventures LTD (Eurotech) dated November 15, 2004 and as such is
attached here to and made a part of.

Euro tech hereby fully and forever waives the right to terminate the agreement
pursuant to Section 5 of the Royalty Agreement titled :Novation: wherein
Eurotech was granted the option to terminate the agreement if the registration
filed by WEL with the SEC was not deemed effective by November 30, 2005.

Signed on this 13th day of December 2005.

Eurotech Capital Ventures, Ltd.

/s/  Janice Hypolite
---------------------------
11365.

#### Allen *v.*The State.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Accusation of possession of liquor; from city court of Floyd county—- Judge Nunnally. February 6, 1920.

Allen was charged with having had in his possession, custody, and control intoxicating liquor. M. D. Martin testified, that he saw near Lindale men and boys, “ all during the day,” walking and in automobiles, going to and from a place up a hill where whisky was afterwards found by him, and bringing away something with the sun shining on it that had the appearance of being jugs and bottles, and he notified the sheriff, and he and the sheriff took a trail which Ted up the hill, and when they got up there they saw the defendant alone, sitting on or in reach of a keg containing between 10 and 15 gallons of whisky, 35 or 40 yards from the road, and where it could not be seen from the road; the defendant was “ leaning sorter up against the keg,” and a quart cup was sitting there; he was doing nothing, and he said he had come up there to get-some whisky and was waiting for the man who owned it to come back; that the whisky was not his whisky. The witness had seen the defendant and another man leave the main public road and go up the hill to or towards this place. The sheriff testified, that when he and Martin reached there the defendant was sitting at the end of the keg, and could have laid his hand on it; that the defendant said he was waiting on the man that had the whisky, and had come there to get a quart of it, that it was not his whisky, but belonged to Will West; he was searched and no whisky or bottle was found on his person; he had a nickel in money. The witness further testified that not more than five or ten minutes before he *332got to that place he saw the defendant and Will West going up there together, and that Will West came down the hill by himself stopped with some boys at an automobile, and remained there 'while the witness was going up the hill. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that some boys told him and Will West that there was some whisky “ over there,” and Will said to him “ Let’s go and get some of it,” and he gave to West what money he had, and “he was going to get the whisky” when they got there, that they heard a car coming, and Will remained to see who was in the car and told him to go on up there; and when he got there he saw the keg and sat down, waiting to get some of it.

*331Broyles, C. J.

Tlie evidence, as disclosed by the record, was insufficient ■to authorize the defendant's conviction, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*332
      *W. B. Mebane,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F.*Kelly, *solicitor,*contra.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 480 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 480

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 747 Broadway in Albany, New York, as the ``United States Postal 
                     Service Henry Johnson Annex''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

 Mr. McNulty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 747 Broadway in Albany, New York, as the ``United States Postal 
                     Service Henry Johnson Annex''.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE HENRY JOHNSON ANNEX.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 747 Broadway in Albany, New York, and known as the 
United States Postal Service Carrier Annex, shall be known and 
designated as the ``United States Postal Service Henry Johnson Annex''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the United 
States Postal Service Henry Johnson Annex.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                           EXHIBIT 12

  COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                For Year Ended December 31, 1999

                 (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)



                                        Monongahela Power Company

Earnings:
     Net Income                                   $ 92,327
     Fixed charges (see below)                      36,034
     Income taxes                                   40,726

     Total earnings                               $169,087


Fixed Charges:
     Interest on long-term debt                   $ 31,962
     Other interest                                  2,641
     Estimated interest
       component of rentals                          1,431

     Total fixed charges                          $ 36,034


Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                                       4.69
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

DAVID PLATA SEGOVIA 09-00067-001 and 11-00064-001

62362-019

12-21-2012

Dom Soto

✔

✔

238 186 months

12-21-2012

04-13-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.04.10 12:39:39 -06'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00067-CG-B Document 107 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GRANITE
BROADCASTING CORPORATION'S 2ND QUARTER FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,507,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,066,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                   466,968
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           105,061,941
<PP&E>                                      59,665,850
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,105,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             769,476,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,728,996
<BONDS>                                    433,937,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      228,162,250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,071
<OTHER-SE>                                (21,390,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               769,476,314
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            74,800,227
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               66,032,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (597,226)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          20,205,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,840,693)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,464,990)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,375,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,375,703)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.75)


</TABLE>
1

This amount is in addition to the $785.00 previously taxed by the clerk.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE MCREVY, et al., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0508-CG-B

)

STEPHEN BLAKE RYAN, )

)

Defendant. )

 

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion to re-tax costs (Doc. 95). The

plaintiffs having provided a breakdown of the depositions to be taxed and counsel having made a

written representation that a substantial portion of said depositions were admitted into evidence

as required by the court’s Standing Order No. 13, the costs of the depositions of Stephanie

McRevy, Dr. Craig J. Ledet, D.C., Dr. Michael Dennis Haydel, D.C., Samantha Mulkey, and Dr.

Richard Meyer, M.D. in the amount of $2,366.75 is hereby taxed against defendant Stephen

Blake Ryan pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).1

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00508-CG-B Document 96 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 1
#### D. Jayne *v.*M. Preston's Ex'r.

Mortgages — Foreclosure Against Property of Bankrupt,

Where a mortgagee did not present his claim before the bankruptcy court in a proceeding by the mortgagor, the mortgagee may subsequently foreclose his mortgage against the mortgaged property, no personal judgment being sought against the bankrupt.

APPEAL PROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 15, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It is not alleged in the answer that appellee presented his claim to the bankrupt court, or received any portion of the proceeds of the assets administered by that court.

The mortgage was executed to appellee’s testator a considerable length of time before( appellant applied for the benefit of the bankrupt law, and appellee only sought to subject the mortgaged prop*91erty to the payment of his debt, and that was the only relief that the court below adjudged, no personal judgment against appellant being rendered.

*D. Jayne, for appellant.*

-, *for appellees.*

The answer presented no defense and no error prejudicial to appellant is perceived, wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
10856.

#### Rustin *v.*Norman, administrator.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Complaint; from Tattnall superior court — Judge Sheppard. July 10, 1919.

Stephens, J.

Where it was agreed that the plaintiff should perform certain services for the defendant for which the defendant agreed “to pay and to satisfy” the plaintiff, in a suit upon the contract the plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services actually rendered by him and accepted by the defendant. See, in this connection, Civil Code (1910), § 5513. A petition which alleges such a contract and the performance by the plaintiff and the acceptance by the defendant of such services sets out a cause of action, and is not subject to the objection, on demurrer, that it seeks to recover upon a quantum merit when the existence of a special contract is shown.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*343This suit was against an administrator. The petition alleged: that the decedent “contracted and promised to pay petitioner and to satisfy her” if she would take the decedent’s infant child and support and care for it during its minority; that the petitioner “contracted and agreed to take the said infant child and support it, care for it, and raise it the best she could,” and that on a named date the decedent delivered the child to her “under the terms of the said contract,” and she accepted the child “under the terms of the contract as above set forth, no price being stated or agreed on to be paid to petitioner except as above stated;” that she supported and cared for the child from the date of the alleged contract until the decedent’s death, and that the said services were “reasonably worth the sum of $12.00 per month,” or the total sum of $978, for which sum, and an additional sum of $180, expended for clothes for the child, judgment was prayed. The court sustained a general demurrer and dismissed the petition.

*W. T. Burkhalter,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. S. Way,*for defendant.