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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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 May 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50576 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JAVIER FLORES-PIZANA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:05-CR-660-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Javier Flores-Pizana appeals his conviction of and sentencefor unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Flores-Pizana first challenges the district court’s imposition of a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), which was based on his conviction of assaultNo. 06-50576 -2- under TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 22.01(a)(1). We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo . United States v. Fierro-Reyna , 466 F.3d 324, 326 (5th Cir. 2006). In light of United States v. Villegas-Hernandez , 468 F.3d 874, 880-82 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1351 (2007), which
was issued after sentencing in this case, the imposition of the enhancement was erroneous. Further, because the government has not shown or even argued that the error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed, the error was not harmless. See United States v. Davis , 478 F.3d 266, 273 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Lopez-Urbina , 434 F.3d 750, 765 (5th Cir. 2005). We reject the government’s argument that we should follow United States v. Shelton , 325 F.3d 553, 558-61 (5th Cir. 2003), rather than Villegas-Hernandez
. Flores-Pizana also contends that § 1326(b)’s treatment of felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Flores-Pizana contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. SeeNo. 06-50576 -3- Rangel-Reyes v. United States , 126 S. Ct. 2873 (2006); United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Flores-Pizana properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the conviction, VACATE the sentence, and REMAND for resentencing.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000004028-MAR-201208:20 AM
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

**Form10-Q**

** **

(Mark One)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

 ACT OF 1934

 

For thequarterly period ended****June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

ACT OF 1934

 

For thetransition period from __________ to __________

 

Commission file number0-10673

 

**REALESTATE ASSOCIATES LIMITED III**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber)

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  [X] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For October 15, 2004 EXTENDICARE INC. (Translation of registrants name into English)
 3000 Steeles Avenue East
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9W2 (Address of principal executive offices)
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F     o
    
    Form 40-F     þ
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Yes     o
    
    No     þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX ExhibitNumber
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    News Release dated October 13, 2004  Extendicare Announces Third
Quarter News Release and Conference Call Dates99.2
    
    News Release dated October 15, 2004  Extendicare Inc. Declares
Preferred Share Dividend Payment (TSX: EXE.PR.E)




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. EXTENDICARE INC.Date: October 15, 2004
    By:
    /s/ RICHARD L. BERTRANDRichard L. BertrandSenior Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                             409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                       169
<INVENTORY>                                      2,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,115
<PP&E>                                           8,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,399
<BONDS>                                            720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,394
<SALES>                                          3,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,371
<CGS>                                            1,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    23
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    378
<INCOME-TAX>                                       151
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       227
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devrol Palmer, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 559]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered March 14, 2011, resentencing defendant to a term of 17 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]), and we do not find that term to be excessive. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
11337, 11338.

#### Avery & Co. *v.*Graham *et al.;*and *vice versa.*

Luke, J.

1. “ A direct assignment of error upon a ruling made during the progress of a trial comes too late if for the first time presented in a bill- of exceptions sued out more than thirty days after the adjournment of the term at which such ruling was made.” *Heery*v. *Burkhalter,*113 *Ga.*1043(1) (39 S. E. 406). Nor can such a ruling be properly made a ground of a motion for a new trial. *Methodist Episcopal Church South*v. *Dudley Sash, Door,*& *Lumber Co.,*137 *Ga.*68 (72 S. E. 480). Under these rulings the assignment of error, in the bill of exceptions and in the motion for a new trial, upon the overruling of the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer, cannot be considered.

2. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a ground of a motion for a new trial will not be considered when the ground is so incomplete that it requires a reference to some other part of the record. Under this ruling the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial from the 3d to the 7th, inclusive, and from the 9th to the 18th, inclusive, cannot he considered.

3. A ground of a motion for a new trial complaining of the exclusion of evidence cannot be considered where it fails to show on what ground the evidence was excluded. *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.*v. *Jagues & Tinsley,*23 *Ga. App.*396(2) (98 S. E. 357). Under this ruling, grounds 19, 20, and 21 raise no question for the consideration of this court.

4. The assignment of error upon the refusal of the.court to comply with a certain written request to charge cannot he considered, since it does not appear that the request was tendered to the court before the jury re*162•tired to consider the case. *Barrow*v. *Seaboard Air-Line Railway,*18 *Ga. App.*261(4) (89 S. E. 383).

Decided January 25, 1921.

Complaint; from Effingham superior court — Judge Sheppard. December 9, 1919.

*Don II. Ciarle,*for plaintiffs.

*Travis & Travis,*for defendants.

5. There is no substantial merit in any of the remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

6. The assignments of error in the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are dependent upon a consideration of the evidence in the case, and will not be considered, as there is no proper brief of evidence in the record, and apparently no bona fide effort was made to prepare one. *Newborn*v. *Weitzer,*15 *Ga. App.*668 (84 S. E. 141), and citations.

*Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concm-.*
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Yapp Moi Lee, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Mabcure Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                       

|By:    | /s/Yapp Moi Lee                                
|------ | -----------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Yapp Moi Lee                                   
|Title: | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|       | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|Date:  | April 14, 2008                                 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 OF NT MEDIA CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 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)

      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 NT Media Corp. of California, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

      (1) the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 22, 2005               NT MEDIA CORP. OF
                                        CALIFORNIA, INC.


                                        /s/ Ali Moussavi
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Ali Moussavi
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and Acting Chief Financial Officer

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.
#### Imiya Mann et al., Respondents, v Angela Dambrosio, Defendant, and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 317]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated July 17, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the plaintiff Annette Smalls to provide authorizations to obtain her academic, neurological, and/or psychological records and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude it from conducting a deposition of a nonparty treating social worker and to quash a subpoena served upon that social worker.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiff Annette Smalls to provide authorizations to obtain her academic records and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion only to the extent of directing the plaintiff Annette Smalls to furnish the appellant with authorizations to provide a copy of her academic records to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an in camera review and a redaction by that court of any privileged matter prior to disclosure to the appellant, and thereafter compelling the plaintiffs to furnish authorizations for the records as redacted, and otherwise denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant sufficiently showed that the academic records of the plaintiff Annette Smalls, the infant plaintiffs mother, are relevant and material to its defense of the action. However, since those records may contain privileged material, they should be reviewed in camera by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and privileged material, if any, should be redacted before giving the appellant access to the records *(see Rojas-Onofre v Lutheran Med. Ctr.,*35 AD3d 832 [2006], and cases cited therein).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 32336(U).]
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934   Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): September 15, 2004 Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware
    
    6719
    
    52-2301683(State or Other Jurisdiction
    
    Commission File Number
    
    (I.R.S. Employerof Incorporation)
    
    
    
    Identification Number)
   Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.
140 Broadway, 39th Floor, New York, New York 10005
(212) 978-4700
(Address of principal executive offices and telephone number,
including area code)   Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the
following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below): [   ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) [   ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) [   ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) [   ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13c-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers. On September 15, 2004,
Samuel A. Mitchell was appointed to the board of
directors of Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. (OdysseyRe). As of the date of this
report on Form 8-K, it is not expected that Mr. Mitchell will be named to a
committee of the board of directors of OdysseyRe. Mr. Mitchell
is currently a principal of Hamblin Watsa Investment Counsel, the
investment advisor for OdysseyRe and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, OdysseyRes majority stockholder.




---



##### 



SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. Date: September 21, 2004 ODYSSEY RE HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/ Donald L. SmithName:
    Donald L. SmithTitle:
    Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary
#### Joseph Saint et al., Respondents, v Syracuse Supply Company, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 896]

*1471Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered April 20, 2012. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Joseph Saint (plaintiff) when he fell from an elevated billboard structure during the course of changing the advertisement thereon. We note at the outset that plaintiffs conceded that they had no viable claim under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence, and thus the only remaining Labor Law claims are under sections 240 and 241 (6).

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. We agree with defendant that applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard does not constitute the “altering” of a building or structure for purposes of section 240 *(see Joblon v Solow,*91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]; *see also Bodtman v Living Manor Love, Inc.,*105 AD3d 434, 434 [2013]; *Zolfaghari v Hughes Network Sys., LLC,*99 AD3d 1234, 1235 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 861 [2013]). Rather, that activity is “more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification,” and is thus not an activity protected under section 240 *(Munoz v DJZ Realty, LLC,*5 NY3d 747, 748 [2005]). We further agree with defendant that, because plaintiff was not engaged in construction work, section 241 (6) does not apply to this case *(see Hatfield v Bridgedale, LLC,*28 AD3d 608, 610 [2006]). Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.