alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MENDOZA-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50211

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 2006.

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

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bernardino Mendoza-Galvan (Mendoza) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and the 41-month sentence imposed for illegally reentering the United States after removal. Mendoza argues that his sentence is unreasonable and that it exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense charged in his indictment.

A sentence, such as Mendoza’s, “within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Mendoza argues that the district court failed to consider the mitigating evidence he presented and misweighed the guidelines range. However, Mendoza has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. *See Alonzo,*435 F.3d at 554; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).

Mendoza also argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the 8 U.S.C. § 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.

Mendoza’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). Mendoza 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.
Seneca Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

Gaming Commission

23701 S. 655 Rd 

Grove, OK 74344

918-787-9703

Ms. Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman

Mr. Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner

National Indian Gaming Commission

1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Re: Comments on Electronic One Touch Bingo System

Dear Commissioners:

The Seneca-Cayuga Gaming Commission (“Commission”) submits the following comments regarding the 

National Indian Gaming Commission’s (“NIGC”) proposed reinterpretation of its position on electronic one-touch 

bingo system games, as previously set forth in a June 4, 2008 letter disapproving the Metlakatla Indian 

Community’s gaming ordinance amendments (“2008 Decision”). If adopted, the proposed reinterpretation would 

resolve a longstanding dispute in favor of the tribal position by clarifying that electronic bingo games in which the 

player must only press one button to wager and play is a Class II game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(“IGRA”).

The Commission strongly supports the proposed reinterpretation and the NIGC’s efforts to bring greater 

clarity and stability to the Class II gaming industry. The 2008 Decision classified one touch bingo as a Class III 

electronic facsimile on the basis that it did not meet certain legal elements that were not required under IGRA or its 

implementing regulations. The proposed reinterpretation, on the other hand, correctly adheres to the statutory 

definition of Class II bingo and is consistent with federal court decisions that have repeatedly affirmed that the three 

statutory requirements of bingo are all that is required to be classified as Class II bingo. 

We therefore agree with the NIGC’s current position that one-touch bingo meets the statutory requirements 

for Class II games because it satisfies the required three legal elements - it is played for prizes, the player covers the 

numbers or designations when drawn, and the game is won by the first person covering a previously designated 

arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards. Such position is not only consistent with federal law and 

established legal precedents, but also with Congress’ intent for tribal governmental bingo to evolve and grow along 

with advancing technology. We strongly agree that the NIGC “should give consideration to an interpretation of 

bingo that embraces rather than stifles technological advancements in gaming.” 

For these reasons, we recommend that the NIGC adopt the proposed reinterpretation. 

Sincerely,

___________/s/____________________

Richard Wood, Commissioner

Seneca-Cayuga Gaming Commission
##### 



Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nextel
    Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
    for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    Report), I, Timothy M. Donahue,
    President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
    certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350 (as adopted
    pursuant to § 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; and

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

Date: November 10, 2003

| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE                                          
| | _______________________________________ 
     Timothy M. Donahue
| | Chief Executive Officer                                         



---



##### 



Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nextel
    Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
    for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    Report), I, Paul N. Saleh, Vice
    President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
    certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350 (as adopted
    pursuant to § 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; and

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

Date: November 10, 2003

| |                                                            
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ PAUL N. SALEH                                          
| | _______________________________________ 
     Paul N. Saleh
| | Chief Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Lori Stevens, * From the 118th District Court

 of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 52889

Vs. No. 11-19-00397-CV * December 30, 2021

Thomas Stevens, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Lori Stevens.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1471 

MUMFORD & MILLER CONCRETE, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

Appellee. 

William D. Auxer, Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, PC, of Blue Bell, 

Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. 

Bryant G. Snee, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for the appellee. On the brief 

were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director, and A. Bondurant 

Eley, Trial Attorney. 

Appealed from: Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

 

Administrative Judge Monroe E. Freeman, Jr. 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2007-1471 

MUMFORD & MILLER CONCRETE, INC., 

 Appellant, 

v. 

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

 Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

in CASE NO(S). 53652 and 53653 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED March 14, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
      March 27, 1998

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Birmingham Utilities, Inc. on Form S-8 dated July 25, 1995 and
in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement of
Birmingham Utilities, Inc. on Form S-3 dated June 12, 1995 of our report
dated February 12, 1997, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Birmingham Utilities, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.

/s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.

March 27, 1998
NAL
ne: No,

a a
: 3
o
iy er
SG ComN’

June 8, 2012

Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule
Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite you to
participate in a consultation meeting on the Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule Group Three
regulations. Specifically, we seek input on the following regulations:

Group 3:
(a) Part 543 — Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming; and
(b) Part 547— Minimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used with the
play of Class II Games.

This schedule is the result of the NIGC’s review and consideration of comments received in
response to the Notice of Inquiry published on November 18, 2010 and subsequent Notice of
Regulatory Review Agenda published on April 4, 2011 in the Federal Register. We know that the
best results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian tribes and we look forward
to your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-to-
government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC is committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order 13175
prior to and during any rulemaking process.

As such, we invite all Tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission on Groups One
and Three regulations at a consultation scheduled for July 11, 2012 in Brooks, California, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the following location:

Cache Creek Casino Resort
Napa & Sonoma Rooms
14455 State Highway 16
Brooks, CA

For those Tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit written
comments by e-mail to reg.review@nige.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian Gaming
Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW. Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005.

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation on the
NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of the NIGC home

page, www.nigc.gov.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GoVv

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation, please RSVP
to Rita Homa, Executive Secretary, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at
consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of each tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to maximize the
results of this regulatory review process. We look forward to meeting with you should your
schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation in this regulatory review process.

Sincerely,
Hume Safpusf Coches) SN S

Tracie L. Stevens Steffani A. Cochran Daniel J. Little
Chairwoman Vice-Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13508]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11752 and <greek-i>11753]


West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00013

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West 
Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.
    Incident Period: 05/03/2009 and continuing.

Effective Date: 06/02/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/14/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/15/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West 
Virginia, dated 05/15/2009, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Calhoun, Gilmer, Lewis, Roane, Upshur, Wirt

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13508 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 203 (Thursday, October 22, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25424]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404

[Docket No. SSA-2007-0066]
RIN 0960-AG57


Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Malignant Neoplastic 
Diseases

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to a final rule published 
in the Federal Register on October 6, 2009, regarding a revision of a 
medical listing for malignant neoplastic diseases. In that preamble, we 
cited an incorrect date of publication for the Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (NPRM) that had preceded the final rule.

DATES: Effective November 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Kuhn, 410-965-1020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the preamble to the final rule published October 6, 2009 (74 FR 
51229) we stated the NPRM (73 FR 22871) was published on April 24, 
2008. The NPRM was actually published on April 28, 2008.
    In FR Doc. E9-23896 appearing on page 51229 in the Federal Register 
of Tuesday, October 6, 2009, make the following correction in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. On page 51229, in the third column, 
in the fifth line of the first paragraph under Background, change 
``April 24, 2008'' to ``April 28, 2008.''

    Dated: October 16, 2009.

Dean Landis,
Associate Commissioner for Regulations, Social Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-25424 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
2.01    

2.04    

3.01     Compensation andBenefit Continuation.

; 

3.08    

 

3.10    

ARTICLEVI

6.07    

6.11     Code Section 409ACompliance

8.02     Notices

8.03     Gender andNumber

8.04     Captions

8.05     Severability

8.06     ControllingLaw

8.07     No Right toEmployment

8.08     Indemnification

8.09     NoAlienation

8.10     Code Section 409ACompliance
----

| (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ James W.      Shaffer                                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | James      W. Shaffer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | Vice      President and Chief Financial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | Officer      of      Angelica Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | April      10, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
#### Tyree L. WARDELL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 05-5392.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 27, 2006.

Tyree L. Wardell, Waymart, PA, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 30, 2005, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of its order denying mandamus relief. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the district court’s mandamus authority extends only to federal officers or agencies under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. To the extent the petition sought federal habeas relief, appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia conviction in federal court unless his remedy under D.C.Code Ann. § 23-110(g) is made*5quate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. *See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Quick,*151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1998). The § 23-110 remedy, however, is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because the requested relief has been denied. *See Garris v. Lindsay,*794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C.Cir.), *cert. denied,*479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 595, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986). Aside from federal habeas review, federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review or modify the judicial decisions by state and District of Columbia courts. *See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 486,103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,*544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517,1521-22, 1526 & n. 8, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (The *Rook-er-Feldman*doctrine is applicable to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KALA CORDELL,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL STAINS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 111 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of August

, 2017, t he Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,902]


 Noranda Aluminum, Inc., New Madrid, MO; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 7, 2009, in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at Noranda Aluminum, Inc., New Madrid, 
Missouri.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13442 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P