alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00649

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.G.M. , I.G.M., and O.M.M., Children

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 01163

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Appellant is indigent. No costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED February 1, 2017.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
No. 87-6780.

#### Lowenfield *v.*Butler, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2551 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2551

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
to designate a portion of United States Route 74 in North Carolina as a 
               future interstate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2023

  Mr. Edwards (for himself and Mr. McHenry) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
to designate a portion of United States Route 74 in North Carolina as a 
               future interstate, 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. DESIGNATION OF FUTURE INTERSTATE.

    (a) Designation as High Priority Corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 
102-240) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(103) United States Route 74 from Columbus, North 
        Carolina to Kings Mountain, North Carolina.''.
    (b) Designation as Future Interstate.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by 
striking ``and subsection (c)(102)'' and inserting ``subsection 
(c)(102), and subsection (c)(103)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Patrick Guillory, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 196]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with making a threat. The charge arose out of an incident where petitioner was being interviewed by an investigating officer in reference to a grievance that petitioner had filed when he became agitated and threatened to assault the officer. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge. After the penalty was modified by facility officials, the determination was upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and the testimony of its author provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Lewis v Fischer,*101 AD3d 1317, 1317 [2012]; *Matter of Ventimiglia v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*94 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2012]). Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for several grievances that he had filed created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Blackwell v Fischer,*106 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2013]; *Matter of Sorrentino v Fischer,*101 AD3d 1210, 1210-1211 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 862 [2012]). Further, petitioner’s claim that he was denied access to a videotape of the interview with the investigator is without merit as the record indicates that no such videotape existed *(see Matter of Applewhite v Goord,*45 AD3d 1112, 1112 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 711 [2008]; *Matter of Griffin v Goord,*43 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]). Finally, there is no support in the record for petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Mat*
      *1006
      *ter of Fowler v Fischer,*106 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2013], *lv denied 21*NY3d 865 [2013]; *Matter of Fisher v Fischer,*105 AD3d 1286, 1286 [2013]). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, EJ., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Brian R. Stone, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Brian R. Stone                      |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian R. Stone                                     |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|                                               |
| October 28, 2002                                   |

 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50433

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS ARVIZU-CASTILLO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-291-ALL

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Arvizu-Castillo

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedStates, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d

624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10280

2

Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CARRIE HOGAN, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 05-0154-M 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart and against

Plaintiff Carrie Hogan on all claims.

DONE this 25th day of May, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00154-M Document 29 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
October 11, 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JERI DAWN MONTGOMERY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 09

- 00887

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

This cause was heard ON REMAND from the Court of Criminal Appeals on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment be AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
CERTIFICATE 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 Yearly Report of AVVAA World Health Care Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack Farley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

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

 

*/s/ Jack Farley*
| Name: | Jack Farley |
|-------|-------------|

Title:  Chief Executive Officer

 
| Date: | September 13, 2005 |
|-------|--------------------|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN ESTUARDO CASTANEDA

RIVERA, AKA Edwin Estuardo Castaneda,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 71011

Agency No. A074

- 788

- 534

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2018 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges.

Edwin Estuardo Castaneda Rivera, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71011

reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia

. Our j urisdiction is governed

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen , and we review de novo constitutional claims

. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400

F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in p art the petition

for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying

Castaneda Rivera’s motion to reopen as untime ly, where he filed his motion 19

years after his final order of deportation a nd failed to show due diligenc e after

2001 for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1); see Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.

2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing

a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises

due diligence in di scovering such circumstances); Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due

process challenge)

.

W e lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte

where Castaneda Rivera has not shown the decision was premised on any legal or

constitutional error

. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)

.

Castaneda Rivera’s reques t for a stay of deportation is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43789

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE PALOMINOS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 562

Filed: June 14, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of two years, for injury to children, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jose Palominos, Jr. pled guilty to injury to children. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The 

district court sentenced Palominos to a unified term of ten years with two years determinate. 

Palominos appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 

sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Palominos’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Figueroa, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 883]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered on or about January 31, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,819,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   199,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,341,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,287,000
<PP&E>                                       4,555,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,328,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,523,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,298,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,983,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,530,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,872,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,523,000
<SALES>                                      3,574,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,574,000
<CGS>                                        1,725,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,390,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            150,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2190 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2190

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 
 Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic 
                     Program 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 Environmental 
 Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic 
                     Program 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 ENVIRONMENTAL 
              PROTECTION AGENCY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT, 
              GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Environmental Protection 
Agency, Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Program for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3642 

To suspend temporarily the duty on knitted or crocheted fabrics of cotton, 

printed. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on knitted or crocheted 

fabrics of cotton, printed. 

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

3 SECTION 1. KNITTED OR CROCHETED FABRICS OF COT4 TON, PRINTED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.60.07 Knitted or crocheted fabrics of cotton, 

printed (provided for in subheading 

6006.24) .................................................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3642 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.

The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    - The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules under the       ( print page 1681)                          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) governing the security-based swap data repository (“SDR”) registration process, the duties of such repositories, and the core principles applicable to such repositories.                
    - The Commission will consider whether to adopt Regulation SBSR under the Exchange Act to provide for regulatory reporting of security-based swap information and the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by registered SDRs.
    - The Commission will consider whether to propose certain new rules, rule amendments, and guidance to Regulation SBSR under the Exchange Act to address, among other things, the reporting duties for cleared and platform-executed security-based swap transactions.

The duty officer determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: January 8, 2015.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-00418 Filed 1-9-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00434

- CR

ALEX GONZALEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 339th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1368857).

TO THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 21st day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 22, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT