alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Antonio LARA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51621

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 28, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *724District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kira Anne West, Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Antonio Lara-Lopez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. His sentence is within the applicable guideline range.

Although Lara-Lopez initially argued that the presumption of reasonableness accorded by this court to sentences within the guideline range violated *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), in his reply brief he concedes that the argument is confuted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Rita v. United*States, - U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (holding that a “court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines”). He argues, however, that the district court did not sufficiently explain its reasons for rejecting mitigating factors that he contends justified a below-guideline sentence.

Lara-Lopez has failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable. Immediately before the district court sentenced Lara-Lopez, his counsel expressly argued that Lara-Lopez was entitled to a below-guideline sentence on the basis of his close ties to the United States and because his sentencing range was unduly high given the nature of his prior offenses. The circumstances thus make clear that the district court sufficiently considered Lara-Lopez’s arguments. *See Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2469 (“Where a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.”). Moreover, because the district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range, this court infers that the district court considered the necessary sentencing factors. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005).

In light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Lara-Lopez 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. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate,” *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008), and Lara-Lopez concedes the foreclosure.

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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(1)

                                  CERTIFICATION

                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
                OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                    CHAPTER 63 TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Doral Financial Corporation, a Puerto Rico corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form
l0-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section l3(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Dated: August 13, 2003                       By: /s/ Salomon Levis
                                                 -------------------------------
                                           Name: Salomon Levis
                                          Title: Chairman of the Board
                                                  of Directors and Chief
                                                  Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that Section.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to, and will be retained by, the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Registration No.: 333-105557), Form S-3 (Registration No.: 333-112623) andForm S-4 (Registration No.: 333-107801) of Medis Technologies Ltd. of ourreport dated February 25, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Medis Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 
|               | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------------------|---------------------------|
|               |                      |
| New York, New York |                      |
| March 11, 2004     |                      |

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2200 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2200

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
                   Environment 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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
                   Environment 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL 
              RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $875,000.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
          32.2**
 CERTIFICATION
          OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Domonic
        J. Carney, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
        of
        Composite Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
        2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
        10-Q
        fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
        of
        operations of Composite Technology Corporation.
  Date:
          August 9, 2007
 By:
                  /s/ Domonic
                    J. CarneyDomonic
                    J. Carney
                    Chief
                      Financial
                      Officer




2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 30, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 0011 5

- CR

Gary A. Dunn, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, TRI ANA
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the tr i a l court. This Court’s

opinion and judgment dated March 26, 2019, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record, it

appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over th e appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses th e

appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to p ay costs, no

adjudication of costs is made.
**XM SATELLITE RADIO HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.**

 

XM Satellite Radio Inc. 

XM 1500 Eckington LLC 

XM Orbit LLC 

XM Investments LLC 

 

**Subsidiaries of XM SatelliteRadio Inc.**

 

XM Radio Inc. 

XM Innovations Inc. 

XM Equipment Leasing LLC 

XM EMall Inc. 

XM Capital Resources Inc. 

Interoperable Technologies LLC (50% owned) 

 

All of these subsidiaries are organized in the State of Delaware and are wholly owned subsidiaries unless otherwise noted.
#### Anthony Joseph TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.L. OSBORNE, Warden; Doctor Angliker; Doctor Raynaud, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-7550.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

Anthony Joseph Turner, pro se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA; Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., Guynn & Dillon, Roanoke, VA; Larry Benson Kirksey, Bristol, VA, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Joseph Turner appeals the district court’s order denying his requests to restructure the court-arranged disbursement schedule of his settlement award. *150Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Turner v. Osborne,*No. CA-95-1106-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 29, 2000). We deny Turner’s motions for appointment of counsel and 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.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARNETTA RANKINS o/b/o :

CABRIA B. RANKINS,

:

Plaintiff,

vs. : CA 05-0704-WS-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 4, 2006 is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2006.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00704-WS-C Document 18 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., as Subrogee of Washington Condominium and Another, Plaintiff, v AMI Development, LLC, Appellant, and S&J Industrial Corp., Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 804]

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant AMI Development, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 5, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against the defendant S&J Industrial Corp. for contractual defense and indemnification, and common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto the words “without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery” following the words “denied in its entirety,” contained in the first sentence of the last paragraph thereof; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendant AMI Development, LLC (hereinafter AMI), the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment on its cross claim upon finding, inter alia, that AMI failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its claims for contractual defense and indemnification, and common-law indemnification because it failed to demonstrate its own freedom from negligence *(see generally Mikelatos v Theofilaktidis,*105 AD3d 822, 823 [2013]; *Ventimiglia v Thatch, Ripley & Co., LLC,*96 AD3d 1043, 1047-1048 [2012]).

However, under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the fact that substantial discovery has yet to be conducted in this litigation, we modify the denial of summary judgment by making it without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery *(see Taylor v Krebs,*90 AD3d 645 [2011]; *Spinelli v Vornado Burnside Plaza, LLC,*85 AD3d 897 [2011]).

AMI’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2078 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2078

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
       Supreme Court, Salaries and 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 the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
       Supreme Court, Salaries and 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 THE JUDICIARY, 
              SUPREME COURT, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for The Judiciary, Supreme 
Court, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$84,703,000.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF HANDSPRING, INC.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                            Jurisdiction of               Percentage Owned
                                            Incorporation or             by Handspring, Inc.
              Name                            Organization            (directly or indirectly)
              ----                          ----------------          ------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                                     <C>
Handspring FSC, Inc.                    Barbados                                100%
Handspring International Ltd.           British Virgin Islands                  100%
Handspring Canada, Inc.                 Canada                                  100%
Handspring Denmark ApS                  Denmark                                 100%
Handspring France Sarl                  France                                  100%
Handspring GmbH                         Germany                                 100%
Handspring Italy SRL                    Italy                                   100%
Handspring KK                           Japan                                   100%
Handspring B.V.                         Netherlands                             100%
Handspring Singapore Pte. Ltd.          Singapore                               100%
Handspring International Sarl           Switzerland                             100%
Handspring UK Ltd.                      United Kingdom                          100%
</Table>
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Mandalay Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 of the
Company (the “Form 10-Q/A”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
December
3, 2009


/s/ Russell BurkeRussell
      BurkeChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30652]

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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

[Meeting No. 14-05]

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

December 30, 2014.
    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on December 
30, 2014, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via Webcast. In order to join the 
Webcast, participants may log in as early as 9:50 a.m. ET. You can 
access the Webcast by going to: http://services.choruscall.com/links/tva141230.html (this link is also on the Board of Directors' page on 
TVA's Web site--www.tva.gov). Closed Captioning will be available for 
viewing.
    Participants who are unable to view the Webcast, may dial into the 
call at 1-877-270-2148 or 412-902-6510 and ask for the TVA Board 
Meeting Call.
    The Webcast will be available to view after the event occurs, and 
can be accessed on the Board of Directors' page on TVA's Web site.
    Status: Open.

Agenda

Chair's Welcome

New Business

1. Report of the Finance, Rates, and Portfolio Committee
    A. Generation Fleet Planning--Shawnee Fossil Plant Units 1 and 4
2. Committee Assignments

    For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-
6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and 
have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to 
comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA 
Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Ralph E. Rodgers,
General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30652 Filed 12-24-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
```
Exhibit 31.1

MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION

I, J. Frank
Harrison, III, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1, of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                               
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 3, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Frank Harrison, III                                    
|                     |  |  |  | J. Frank Harrison, III                                        
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
#### Andrea Bonifacio, Respondent, v El Paraiso Food Market, Inc., et al., Defendants, and 85-87 Pitt Street Realty Corporation, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[970 NYS2d 269]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 85-87 Pitt Street Realty Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated April 26, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured in February 2005 when she slipped and fell at or near the entryway of a store owned by the defendant 85-87 Pitt Street Realty Corporation (hereinafter Pitt Street Realty). She commenced this action against Pitt Street Realty and other entities. Pitt Street Realty moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the grounds that it had not created the defect and that it was an out-of-possession landlord without control of the *455premises and without any other duty to maintain or repair them. In opposition, the plaintiff contended, among other things, that the area where she fell was part of the public sidewalk and that Pitt Street Realty had a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210.

The Supreme Court properly denied Pitt Street Realty’s motion. There are triable issues of fact relating to, among other things, the precise location of the accident, and Pitt Street Realty’s duty, if any, to the plaintiff *(cf. Lanhan v City of New York,*69 AD3d 678, 678 [2010]). Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.