alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CHAVEZ-TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40128.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Luis Chavez-Tovar appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of *Ap-prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 *641S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 37-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 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.

Chavez-Tovar’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Chavez-Tovar 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.

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theresa Mooring, Appellant, v American Airlines et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided June 9, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*12 NY3d 704 (2009)].
#### Ernesto Canseco AVILA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 06-70492, 06-71234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 12, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Alma Rosa Nieto, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*123MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b); *cf. Oh v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-001-2015]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, requesting subzone status for the facility of Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 8, 2015.

The proposed subzone (10.8 acres) is located at 1841, 1883, 1901 and 1941 South 5070 West, Salt Lake City. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 30.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 23, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 10, 2015.

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at                     *christopher.kemp@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-0862.                

Dated: January 8, 2015.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-00451 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Ruth Wachspress, Respondent, v Central Parking System of New York, Inc., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 439]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered August 13, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Summary judgment in favor of defendant is warranted in this action where the decedent Marcia Wachspress (decedent) was injured when she tripped and fell over a wheel stop in defendant’s parking lot. Defendant established, through photographs, that the particular wheel stops over which decedent fell were open and obvious, readily observable by anyone employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous *(see Philips v Paco Lafayette LLC,*106 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2013]; *Buccino v City of New York,*84 AD3d 670 [1st Dept 2011]; *Albano v Pete Milano’s Discount Wines & Liqs.,*43 AD3d 966 [2d Dept 2007]; *Cardia v Willchester Holdings, LLC,*35 AD3d 336 [2d Dept 2006]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, decedent never testified that she was instructed by the parking lot attendant to take a particular path to the shuttle bus. However, even if she were, that does not render the wheel stops any less open and obvious, *500or readily observable, nor does it render them dangerous or defective. Similarly, while plaintiff asserts that the wheel stops were not being used in a proper manner, but were used as a barricade, decedent never testified that this use caused her confusion, or contributed to her fall. Nor is there any evidence that such use violated any standard. Plaintiffs argument, that decedent was distracted by the attendant pointing to the shuttle and saying “over there,” in response to her inquiry about the shuttle’s location, is belied by the record, as the attendant had already pointed and said “over there” before plaintiff turned and walked several steps. Furthermore, the record is devoid of evidence that defendant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition *(cf. Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts.,*5 AD3d 69 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32130(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   822
<PP&E>                                         158,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,939
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,771
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,074
<SALES>                                         17,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,388,912
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,371,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,371,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,371,221)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.39)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1941-1942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLOR957000-L63100000-HD0000-15XL1116AF: HAG15-0060]


Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, 
Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this 
publication.

Willamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 30 S., R. 8 W., accepted November 7, 2014
T. 20 S., R. 7 W., accepted November 18, 2014
T. 19 S., R. 5 W., accepted November 18, 2014


ADDRESSES: A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at 
the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd 
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch 
of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, 
Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business 
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 
message

[[Page 1942]]

or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during 
normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A person or party who wishes to protest 
against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State 
Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. 
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of 
protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty 
days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is 
received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, 
email address, or other personal identifying information in your 
comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

Mary J.M. Hartel,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Oregon/Washington.
[FR Doc. 2015-00413 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
Exhibit
      4.2

    


    FIRST
      AMENDED ADVISORY SERVICES AGREEMENT

    


    This
      First Amended Advisory Services Agreement (the “Amended
      Agreement”),
      is
      effective as of May 14, 2007, between Mark L. Baum, Esq. (the “Consultant”),
      and
      VoIP, Inc. (the “Company”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      on May
      9, 2007, the Consultant and the Company entered into an Advisory Services
      Agreement (the “Services
      Agreement”),
      a
      copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
      A;

    


    WHEREAS,
      the
      Consultant and the Company wish to amend Section 4(c) of the Services
      Agreement;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      in
      consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amended Agreement,
      and
      for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
      acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

    


    
      	
            	1.	
              AMENDMENT.

            


    

    


    Section
      4(c) of the Services Agreement shall be amended and restated as
      follows:

    


    Options.
      By or
      before Payment Date One, Consultant shall have an option to purchase 1,875,000
      common Company shares (“Option
      One Shares”)
      for
      $.18 per share. By or before Payment Date Two, Consultant shall have an option
      to purchase 1,875,000 common Company shares (“Option
      Two Shares”)
      for
      $.18 per share. The Option One Shares and Option Two Shares, if such an option
      to purchase such common shares is exercised, shall be registered in a Form
      S-8
      registration statement and shall be delivered to Consultant free of any
      restrictive legend.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amended Advisory Services Agreement has been
      executed by the parties first listed above as of May 14, 2007.

     

    
      	CONSULTANT:	 	 	COMPANY:
	
            	 	 	
            
	MARK L. BAUM, ESQ.	 	 	VOIP, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Mark L. Baum, Esq.	 	 	/s/
              Anthony J. Cataldo
	
              
Mark
              L. Baum, Esq.	 	 	
              
By:
              Anthony J. Cataldo
	
            	 	 	
              Its:
                Chief Executive Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2526 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans 

with serious illnesses are eligible for assistance and support services 

provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

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

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans with serious illnesses are eligible for 

assistance and support services provided by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Support Our Services 

5 to Veterans Caregivers Act’’ or the ‘‘S.O.S. Veterans 

6 Caregivers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2526 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVICES PROVIDED TO CARE2 GIVERS OF VETERANS. 

3 (a) CAREGIVERS OF VETERANS WITH SERIOUS ILL4 NESSES.—Paragraph (2)(B) of section 1720G(a) of title 

5 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘illness 

6 or’’ after ‘‘serious’’ each place it appears. 

7 (b) ASSESSING CAREGIVER AND VETERAN BURDEN

8 AND SATISFACTION.— 

9 (1) SURVEY.—Paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of such sec10 tion is amended— 

11 (A) in subclause (V), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

12 and inserting a semicolon; 

13 (B) in subclause (VI)(bb), by striking the 

14 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

16 subclause: 

17 ‘‘(VII) not less than annually, a multi18 dimensional assessment to measure, in both ob19 jective and subjective terms, the burden and 

20 strain felt by the family caregiver.’’. 

21 (2) REPORTS.—Section 101(c)(2)(B) of the 

22 Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services 

23 Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–163; 38 U.S.C. 

24 1720G note) is amended— 

25 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

26 inserting a semicolon; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2526 IH

1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) a description of the satisfaction 

6 experienced by caregivers and veterans 

7 with respect to such program, including 

8 any findings regarding whether such pro9 gram reduces the burden and strain felt by 

10 caregivers.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to services provided 

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2771-2772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9003]


In the Matter of the Designation of Maulana Fazlullah also known 
as Mullah Fazlullah; also known as Fazal Hayat; also known as Mullah 
Radio as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 
1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Maulana Fazlullah 
also known as Mullah Fazlullah also known as Fazal Hayat also known as 
Mullah Radio, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, 
acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the 
national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have

[[Page 2772]]

a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual 
the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the 
ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I determine that no prior 
notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination 
who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because 
to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-00790 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0195. JONATHAN GUYTON v. ROBERT ADAMS, WARDEN et al.

The trial court denied Jonathan Guyton in forma pauperis status in the

underlying habeas corpus proceeding and subsequently denied his motion for

reconsideration. Guyton now seeks discretionary review in this Court. Under our

Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases

involving habeas corpus. See Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4).

Accordingly, we hereby TRANSFER this case to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 05, 2022

01/05/2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicole Hartman-McMurray, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 908]

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael F. Griffith, J.), rendered October 4, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of felony aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [2-a] [b]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [B]). The record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see *generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see *id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
<PAGE>



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this amendment # 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-113141) of IMAX Corporation of our
report dated February 27, 2004 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2003. We also consent to the reference to use under the heading Experts in such
Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
---------------------------------
Toronto, Canada
July 28, 2004