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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41349

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS FRANCISCO MORALES-AGUSTINE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-921

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Francisco MoralesAgustine (Morales) argues thatthe enhancement provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional. To the extent his arguments may be raised in this appeal

following remand, United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002),

Morales’s arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 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. The appellant's motion for summary
No. 06-41349

2

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Maryellen Gibau, Plaintiff, v Atlantic Infiniti, Ltd., Respondent, and Daniel Hamburger, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[974 NYS2d 265]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Daniel Hamburger appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated April 19, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Atlantic Infiniti, Ltd., to compel him to pay its attorneys’ fees and litiga*1030tion costs, and (2) a money judgment of the same court dated September 19, 2012, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant Atlantic Infiniti, Ltd., and against him in the principal sum of $80,615.25.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the money judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the money judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Atlantic Infiniti, Ltd.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant Daniel Hamburger. At the time of the accident, Hamburger was operating what the parties describe as a “loaner” vehicle provided to him by the defendant Atlantic Infiniti, Ltd. (hereinafter Atlantic Infiniti), while Hamburger’s own vehicle was being serviced. In an order dated August 7, 2008, the Supreme Court (McCarty, J.) awarded Atlantic Infiniti conditional summary judgment on its cross claims against Hamburger for contractual and common-law indemnification. After the plaintiffs claims were settled, Atlantic Infiniti moved to compel Hamburger to pay its attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The Supreme Court (Galasso, J.) granted that motion, and subsequently entered a money judgment in favor of Atlantic Infiniti and against Hamburger.

“[T]he common law permits a vehicle owner/lessor to recover indemnity from a negligent user/lessee, even absent an express indemnity provision” *(Morris v Snappy Car Rental,*84 NY2d 21, 29 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to Hamburger’s contention, “[t]his common-law right of indemnification against the party actually at fault encompasses the right to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in connection with defending the suit brought by the injured party” *(Chapel v Mitchell,*84 NY2d 345, 347 [1994]).

In light of our determination that Atlantic Infiniti was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs pursuant to the doctrine of common-law indemnification, it is unnecessary to address Hamburger’s contentions regarding contractual indemnification. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
#### State v. Partridge

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 227

No. 570P06

Def’s PWC to Review Decision of COA (COA05-1482)

Denied 05/03/07
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion Madison DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7054.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 20, 2006.

*459Marion Madison Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Marion Madison Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to require the Government to file a Fed. R.CrimJP. 35 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Davis,*No. 2:96-cr-00053-HCM (E.D.Va. May 18, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
* 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. 99-41355

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS JASSO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-98-CR-620-12

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Marcos Jasso has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jasso has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Service Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anyone requesting information regarding the ACTPCMD should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: 1) Send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 2) call (301) 443-0430; or 3) send an email to                         *jweiss@hrsa.gov.*

Jackie Painter,

Acting Director, Division of Policy and Information Coordination.

[FR Doc. 2015-00841 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Security National Financial Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen M. Sill, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
      May 14, 2010
            /s/ Stephen M.
      SillStephen M.
      SillVice President,
      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer)








45


---
OCTOBER 2009 CALENDAR

From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. TINABURTCH, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-507 DECISION

On May 1, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, with three (3) years suspended, for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence, for the offense of Count VI: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony.

On October 9, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant appeared via teleconference and was represented by Kris Copenhaver. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District *65Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 9th day of October, 2009.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136587 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136587 COA: 282094 Wayne CC: 02-008563-01 KEITH ANTONIO FINLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 8, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
AUGUST 2009 CALENDAR

From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BENJAMIN BERNS, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-478 DECISION

On March 24, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with five (5) years suspended for the offense of Burglary, a felony. If the Defendant is found eligible, he is to enter into and complete the Boot Camp program.

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Ethan Lerman. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6 th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  March 8, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (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 [X] Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit            Description
-------            -----------

<S>                <C>
99.1               Press Release, dated March 7, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
                   Announces Revised Pricing Terms.
</TABLE>




<PAGE>



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.


Date:  March 8, 2005



                                   HOLLINGER INC.


                                   By /s/ Peter G. White
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:    Peter G. White
                                      Title:   Vice President, Operations
                                               and Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Tolentino, Appellant.

Submitted June 15, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1903

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JOHN CORNYN, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-182-1) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda C. Armstead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Brenda C. Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s amended judgment was entered on the docket on April 15, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on July 22, 2003. Because Armstead failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DYWAN KING, aka Doughboy, aka DJ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00052-JRS-4; 3:06-cv-00845-JRS) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dywan King, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dywan King seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### George Kralik et al., Respondents, v 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp., Appellant.

Submitted February 2, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit
      32











CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of
      Cactus Ventures, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for
      the annual period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Diane S. Button, Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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













Date:
      February 12,
      2008                                                                                       /s/
      Diane S. Button


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-159851, 333-144906 & 333-148972) of WABCO Holdings Inc. of our reports dated February 18, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WABCO Holding Inc. andsubsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of WABCO Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

Ernst & Young Bedrijfsrevisoren BCVBA/Réviseurs d’Entreprises SCCRL 

Represented by: 

/s/ Harry Everaerts, Partner 

Brussels, Belgium 

February 18, 2010