alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40490

c/w No. 04-40535 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RAUL ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-48-ALL

USDC No. 1:93-CR-113-2

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Araguz-Ramirez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for being found illegally present in the United States

after deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that,

pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the offense, not sentence

enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. As

Araguz concedes, however, this argument is foreclosed by
No. 04-40490

c/w No. 04-40535

-2-

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Araguz also argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), should be applied

to sentences determined under the federal sentencing guidelines. 

He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s

recent opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66

(5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263), but he raises it to preserve it for possible

further review.

Araguz does not brief any argument concerning how or why any

potential reduction in his sentence for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326

conviction would have any bearing on the sentence the district

court imposed upon revocation of his supervised release for his 

prior illegal-reentry conviction. He has therefore abandoned his

appeal from the revocation of his supervised release. United

States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir.

1991).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION 09-00240-KD

)

JUAN RAMON SABINA, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon motion of the United States (doc. 213) and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the following assets are dismissed from the

Superseding Indictment in the above styled case against JUAN RAMON SABINA:

REAL PROPERTY:

1. All of that lot or parcel of land, together with it’s building, appurtenances,

improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements, that would constitute the residence,

curtilage and outlying property with the street address of 6562 Jib Road West, in Eight Mile,

Alabama, which property is more particularly described as:

Begin at a point 486 feet south and 60 feet east of center of Section 35, Township

2 South, Range 3 West, Mobile County, Alabama; thence run east 462 feet to a

corner; thence run south 476 feet to a corner; thence west 462 feet to a corner;

then run north 476 feet to the beginning; all east-west lines parallel to the

north-south center line of said Section 35, being Parcels A, B, C according to

deed recorded in the office of Judge of Probate of Mobile County, Alabama, in

Real Property Book 1608, Page 876, and Real Property Book 3837, Page 875.

DONE and ORDERED this March 31, 2010.

 s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00240-KD-B Document 215 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

438 TP 16-02001 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF AKEEM A. BRENSON, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

DONALD VENETTOZZI, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

AKEEM A. BRENSON, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County [Dennis F. Bender, A.J.], entered October 27, 2016) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                                         3,296,724
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         772,925
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               850,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    522,315
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        102,081,585
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,513,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,538,654
<DEPOSITS>                                     108,655,756
<SHORT-TERM>                                   4,772,055
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            0
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       615,375
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,495,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 121,538,654
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4,591,527
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              21,436
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               157,426
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4,770,389
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2,325,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,325,245
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,445,144
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  128,533
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,927,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                526,656
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     526,656
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   327,576
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 9.39
<LOANS-NON>                                    786,480
<LOANS-PAST>                                   851,653
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,516,705
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  133,962
<RECOVERIES>                                   1,917
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,513,193
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,513,193
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        51,000



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1022
GEORGE ELVIS MOYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-00-581-1) Submitted: April 18, 2003 Decided: May 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Elvis Moyer, Appellant Pro Se. Fred Thurman Hamlet, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Elvis Moyer appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this Title VII action alleging race discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moyer v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. , No. CA-00-581-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Nov. 21, 2002, entered Nov. 22, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 of WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, B. Michael Adler, President and Chief Executive 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, 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; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. By:
    /s/ B. Michael AdlerName:
    B. Michael AdlerTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer March 23, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

MARK A. HOFFMAN,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2737 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 106 DB 2020

Attorney Registration No. 29577

(Montgomery County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2020, upon consideration of the Verified 

Statement of Resignation, Mark A. Hoffman is disbarred on consent from the Bar of this 

Commonwealth. See Pa.R.D.E. 215. Respondent shall comply with all of the provisions 

of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
EXHIBIT 13.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wilfried Vancraen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 30, 2020



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Wilfried Vancraen  
|    |  | Wilfried Vancraen      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J I N F E NG GU O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72261 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 870- 427 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J i n F e ng G uo, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order s um m ar i l y a ff i rm i ng an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, an dr e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) .



# FI LED MA R 14 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72261 2 O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 3 4 8 F .3 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng be c aus e the di s c r e panc ybe tw e e n G uo’ s de c l ar a t i on and hi s t e s t i m onyr e gar di ng w he the rhe pr e s e nt e d aw r i tt e n pe t i t i on t o agove rnm e ntof f i c i a l dur i ng the A ugus t15, 2003, p r o te s t m ar c h g o e s to th e h e art o f h is c la im . See Koh l iv. G on zales , 473 F . 3d 1061, 1 0 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3d 959, 964 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( “ [ s ] o l ong a s o n e o f th e id e n tif

ie dg r o u n d s is s up p o rte db ys ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a n dg o e s to th e h earto f [th e] cl ai m o f p ersecu t i o n , w e are b o u n dt o accep tth e IJ’ s ad v erse c r e d ib ilityf

in d in g .” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n th e ab s e n c e o f c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , G u o ’s a s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Farah , 348 F .3 da t 1 1 5 6 . B e c aus e G uo’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the t e s t i m onythe a ge nc yf ound not c r e di bl e , and he poi nt s t o no othe re vi de nc e s how i ng i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nothe w ill b e to rtu r e dif

r e tu rn e dto C h in a , h is C A T c la im a ls o f a ils . Fa ra h v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 4 8 F .3 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 - 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 199 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 199

   To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security 
 assistance to Ukraine until operational control of the United States-
           Mexico border is achieved, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

Mr. Rosendale (for himself and Mrs. Miller of Illinois) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security 
 assistance to Ukraine until operational control of the United States-
           Mexico border is achieved, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secure America's Borders First 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--None of the funds described in subsection (b) may 
be obligated or expended until the date on which--
            (1) a border wall system along the United States-Mexico 
        border is completed; and
            (2) operational control, as such term is defined in section 
        2 of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note), of such 
        border is achieved.
    (b) Funds Described.--The funds described in this subsection are 
the following, with respect to programs, projects, or activities in 
Ukraine:
            (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
        available to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year.
            (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
        available for security assistance or security cooperation for 
        any fiscal year.
    (c) Border Wall System.--For purposes of this Act, a border wall 
system shall include--
            (1) 30-foot high internally hardened steel-bollard physical 
        barrier;
            (2) all-weather access and patrol roads;
            (3) perimeter lighting; and
            (4) enforcement cameras, sensors, and anti-tunnel detection 
        technology.
                                 <all>
```
11938.

#### Allen *v.*Armstrong.

Decided March 9, 1921.

Motion to open default; from Warren superior court — Judge Walker. October 18, 1920.

*L. D. McGregor,*for plaintiff in error. *M. L. Felts,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Exceptions pendente lite cannot be considered unless error is assigned thereon, either in the main bill of exceptions or in this court by counsel for plaintiff in error, before the argument begins. See *Shaw*v. *Jones,*133 *Ga.*446(1) (66 S. E. 240), and cases cited. In the instant case the bill of exceptions recites that to the order of the judge refusing to open the default which had been entered, the plaintiff in error “ then and there filed his bill of exceptions pendente lite to the order and judgment of said judge, refusing to open said default.” Nowhere in the bill of exceptions is error assigned upon the exceptions pendente lite; nor was error assigned thereon in this court by counsel for the plaintiff in error before argument. Decisions of the Supreme Court which bind this court control this question. Therefore, the point which it is sought to raise by these exceptions cannot be considered.

2. Although the evidence for the plaintiff might have authorized a verdict for a greater amount than that found, or for a lesser amount, this fact will not necessitate a reversal, at the instance of the defendant, under the facts of this case. Eor no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based only on the general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworlh, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7720

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS LINDSEY MEHAFFEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00012-MR-WCM-1)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Lindsey Mehaffey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7720 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Lindsey Mehaffey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the 

record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard), cert. 

denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Mehaffey, No. 1:17-cr-00012-MR-WCM-1 (W.D.N.C. 

Oct. 28, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7720 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Health IT at NIST 

NIST research and development in standards, testing, 

security and privacy, usability, certification, and 

emerging technologies will enable health IT 

interoperability and adoption.

Overview

NIST’s mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by 

advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance 

economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory accelerates the development and 

deployment of information and communication systems that are reliable, usable, interoperable, and secure; advances 

measurement science through innovations in mathematics, statistics, and computer science; and conducts research to develop 

the measurements and standards infrastructure for emerging information technologies and applications.

Industry Need Addressed

As health IT has become a top priority around the nation, it is clear that standards and interoperability are key to the 

fulfillment of the goals of health IT:

• Higher quality and more efficient care.

• Seamless, secure, and private movement of data between healthcare providers and consumers without compromise or 

loss of information.

• Access to medical histories (including diagnoses, diagnostic tests, laboratory tests, and medication lists) at the point of 

care and in other settings.

• Fewer errors and redundant tests.

• More efficient and effective reporting, including surveillance and quality monitoring.

• Quick detection of adverse drug reactions and epidemics.

• Advance healthcare information enterprise integration through standards and testing.

• Consult on updating the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan.

• Consult on voluntary certification programs.

• Consult on health IT implementation.

• Provide pilot testing of standards and implementation specifications, as requested.

NIST Approach

NIST has been collaborating with industry and others to improve the healthcare information infrastructure since the 1990s. 

NIST IT researchers have an internationally respected reputation for their knowledge, experience, and leadership. Since 

2004, NIST has worked closely with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the National Coordinator for 

Health IT (HHS/ONC). The role of NIST is further articulated in the 2008‐2012 Federal Health IT strategic plan and the 

Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act to:

Version 1.0 - February 2011
Health IT at NIST

Impact

The NIST Health IT program will help improve the quality and availability of healthcare and reduce healthcare costs 

by enabling the establishment of an emerging health IT network that is correct, complete, secure, usable, 

and testable.

For additional information, please visit http://www.nist.gov/healthcare/hit/index.cfm

Key Contact

Bettijoyce Lide

Senior Advisor and Program Coordinator, Health IT

Information Technology Laboratory

bjlide@nist.gov

(301) 975-2218

Version 1.0 - February 2011