alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas MARES-CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41381.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis*331triet of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tomas Mares-Calderon (Mares) pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment charging him with entering the United States illegally following deportation. Mares was sentenced to a 21-month term of imprisonment and to a two-year period of supervised release. Mares gave timely notice of his appeal.

Mares challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Mares’s argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), in which the Supreme Court held that treatment of prior convictions as sentencing factors in § 1326(b)(1) and (2) was constitutional. Although Mares contends that a majority of the Supreme Court would now consider *Almendarez-Torres*to be incorrectly decided in light of *Apprendi,*“[t]his court has repeatedly rejected arguments like the one made by [Mares] and has held that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding despite *Apprendi.” United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Mares concedes as much, but he raises the argument to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: September 4,
 2009 | By: | /s/ Barry Weiner                                         
|                          |     |                                                          
|                          |     | Barry Weiner                                             
|                          |     | Chief Financial
 Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1903 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1903

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
                 Capitol Building for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
                 Capitol Building for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR JOINT ITEMS, CAPITOL 
              BUILDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Joint Items, Capitol 
Building for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $42,579,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1930 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations for 

fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, State Unemployment Insurance and 

Employment Service Operations for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, STATE UNEMPLOY5 MENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERV6 ICE OPERATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, State Unemployment InVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:10 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1930.IH H1930

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1930 IH

1 surance and Employment Service Operations for fiscal 

2 year 2024 may not exceed $84,066,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of James B. Hammond, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

December 2, 1924.

Wills — execution — evidence establishing formal publication.

Formal publication of a will is established by evidence of a layman who drafted, the' will, who testified as to all the facts set forth in the attestation clause, that the decedent declared the paper to be his last will and testament before he signed it in the presence of the witnesses, and that the clause was read aloud by the layman to the decedent and to the two witnesses, and by the evidence of the witnesses who testified that they knew that they were there to attend the execution of a will, although they do not remember seeing the testator sign the will.

Proceeding for probate of will.

*George C. Andrews,*for the proponent.

*Frederick E. Weeks,*for the contestants.

*117Slater, S.:

This will has a full attestation clause thereon. It appears that the witnesses do not remember seeing the testator sign the will. There was present a layman who had drafted the will and who testified as to all the facts set forth in the attestation clause. From the testimony of the witnesses to the will it appears that they knew that they were there to attend the execution of a will. All that was said or done was part of one transaction. The layman who prepared the will testified that the decedent declared the paper to be his last will and testament before he had signed it in the presence of the witnesses to the will; that the clause was read aloud by the layman to the decedent and to the two witnesses. I am satisfied from all of the evidence that there was a formal publication of the will, and that the will was properly executed in the one entire transaction taking place in the presence of the witnesses and the decedent and the layman who drafted the will. (Jessup Redf. Surr. 318, 321, 335, 337; *Matter of Gamber,*53 Misc. 168.)

I feel constrained, therefore, to admit the will to probate. Let decree be prepared accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1865 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1865

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
     Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
     Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, SERGEANT AT 
              ARMS AND DOORKEEPER EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Sergeant at Arms 
and Doorkeeper Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$126,595,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 183 

To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. MANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To promote accountability and transparency in future 

executive orders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION RESPECTING CERTAIN EXECU4 TIVE ORDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days before 

6 issuing a qualifying executive order, the President shall 

7 transmit to the Congress, and make publicly available, a 

8 notification with respect to such executive order. Such no9 tification shall contain— 

10 (1) the text of the executive order; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 183 IH

1 (2) the Federal law or laws affected by the ex2 ecutive order that is the subject of the notification; 

3 (3) how the President is working within the pa4 rameters specified in Federal law and the Constitu5 tion; 

6 (4) the means by which the executive order will 

7 be accomplished, including through any related Fed8 eral agencies or departments; and 

9 (5) a comprehensive list of organizations, busi10 nesses, and other parties or entities the President, 

11 or the President’s designee, engaged with prior to 

12 the issuance of such executive order. 

13 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, and every 12 months 

15 thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress a 

16 report on the outcome of each qualifying executive order 

17 issued during the period covered by the report. 

18 (c) QUALIFYING EXECUTIVE ORDER.—The term 

19 ‘‘qualifying executive order’’ means any executive order 

20 (including an executive order that revokes or nullifies a 

21 previous executive order) issued on or after the date of 

22 the enactment of this Act, relating to any policy with re23 spect to immigration into the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.23

PROMISSORY NOTE

|$175,000 | Sunnyvale, California
October 11, 2000
|-------- | --------------------------------------

For
value received, the undersigned promises to pay Preview Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), at its
principal office the principal sum of $175,000 with interest from the date hereof at a rate of 11.00% per annum, compounded annually, on the unpaid balance of such principal sum. Such principal and
interest shall be due and payable on October 11, 2001.

If
the undersigned's employment or consulting relationship with the Company is terminated prior to payment in full of this Note, this Note shall be immediately due and payable.

Principal
and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THIS NOTE MAY BE PREPAID AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PREMIUM OR PENALTY. Any such prepaid
amounts shall be applied to accrued interest before application to any principal amount due.

Should
suit be commenced to collect any sums due under this Note, such sum as the Court may deem reasonable shall be added hereto as attorneys' fees. The makers and endorsers have
severally waived presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, and notice of nonpayment of this Note.

This
Note is full recourse.

| |  | Vincent Pluvinage
| |  | -----------------

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00077-CR

Walter Tendai Chidyausiku

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1264242R)

February 19, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial or 

other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot_____________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,976,751
<SECURITIES>                                     6,273
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,984,209
<PP&E>                                          36,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,001,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,643,333
<COMMON>                                       399,830
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,001,631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (42,231)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,015)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


</TABLE>
#### S. M. Hewitt *v.*J. H. Richart.

Vendor’s Liens — Pleading.

When purchase-money remains unpaid at the time land is conveyed the grantor has no' lien on the land unless it is stated in the deed what part of the purchase-money remains unpaid.

Pleading.

A petition to enforce a vendor’s lien on real estate is fatally defective which alleges only that a lien exists in plaintiffs favor. This is a mere conclusion.

APPEAL PROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

April 5, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

No personal judgment was rendered against Mrs. Sarah M. Hewitt, but her land' was adjudged to be sold to satisfy the amount apparently due on the note sued on, including interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.

It is averred in the petition that John D. Young, the vendor of the land, had conveyed to Mrs. Hewitt. The petition does not state facts showing that the appellee holds a lien upon the land to secure the payment of the note. The only averment on the subject is, “Plaintiff states that a lien exists in his favor on said forty acres, 2 roods and 30 poles of land for his debt with interest thereon, etc.” This is but the averment of a legal conclusion.

When the deed from Young to Mrs. Hewitt was executed and delivered the Revised Statutes were in force. Sec. 26, Chap. 80, Rev. *665Stat., provided, when purchase money remained unpaid on land at the time a conveyance was made, the grantor should not have a lien for the same unless it was expressly stated in the deed what part of the consideration remained unpaid; and this limitation upon the rights of the vendor was held in various cases to operate as well in favor of the vendee as of creditors and purchasers.

*B. D. Lacy, for appellant. J. S. Hunt, for appellee.*

The petition does not show that it is stated in the deed to Mrs. Hewitt that the sum evidenced by the note sued on remained unpaid, at the time of its execution. The deed is referred to as being of record in the proper office in Bath county, but a copy is not filed in the cause. It is impossible, therefore, from appellee’s petition and exhibits, to determine that the legal conclusion averred by him is correct. It is true the note states that it is “mentioned in the deed already delivered.” This recital might be sufficient evidence to sustain the necessary allegations if it had been made in the petition, but in the absence of such allegations and of the deed itself, it is not sufficient to authorize the sale of the appellant’s lands.

Judgment *reversed.*Upon the return of the cause, appellant will be allowed to answer and make defense.
EXHIBIT 10.16

THIRD AMENDMENT TO        ONE THOUSAND BROADWAY BUILDING LEASE AGREEMENT        By and Between        One Thousand Broadway Building Limited Partnership        And

This Third Amendment is entered into and executed by ONE THOUSAND BROADWAY BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("Landlord"), and PREVIEW SYSTEMS, INC. a Delaware Corporation ("Tenant").

RECITALS



NOW,
THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease to evidence their agreement with respect to the foregoing:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

|                            |  | Existing Premises |           | Expansion Premises |   | Total                
|--------------------------- |  | ----------------- | --------- | ------------------ | - | ---------------------
|October 2000February 2002: |  | $                 | 29,782.47 |                    | $ | 6,038.00; ($24.00 psf
|March 2002December 2002:   |  | $                 | 33,378.75 |                    | $ | 6,038.00; ($24.00 psf

---

Existing Premises

Expansion Premises

Total7.41%

1.26
%
8.67
%


Executed
in multiple counterparts, effective as of the                  day of               
         , 2000.

|                                           |  |                       |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------- |  | 
|LANDLORD:                                  |  | TENANT:              
|One Thousand Broadway Building Limited     |  | Preview Systems, Inc.
|Partnership, an Oregon limited partnership |  |                       |  | 
|                                           |  | By:                   |  | 
|                                           |  |                       |  | 
|By: 1000, Inc., General Partner            |  | Name:                 |  | 
|                                           |  |                       |  | 
|                                           |  | Title:                |  | 
|                                           |  |                       |  | 
|By:                                        |  |                       |  | 
|Thomas P. Moyer, President                 |  |                       |  | 

---

QuickLinks
11267.

#### Newman *v.*Cable Piano Company.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Newnan — Judge Post. December 18, 1919.

*■J. G. Newman,*W. *L. Stallings,*for plaintiff in error.

*Garland M. J ones,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence being such as could have been ascertained by the movant by the exercise of due diligence, and being merely cumulative and impeaching, and', if adduced upon a new trial, not likely to produce a different result, and there being evidence to support the verdict, the trial judge did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

2. A certain affidavit which was offered by the respondent and admitted in evidence upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial, in response to the movant’s subpoena duces tecum, was not subject to the objection that it contained matter immaterial to the issue.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Mill, J., eoneur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1998 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Center 

for Advancing Translational Sciences for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing 

Translational Sciences for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1998 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING 

5 TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na10 tional Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing 

11 Translational Sciences for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

12 $806,373,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS