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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41501

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-FLORES,

also known as Simon Millan-Flores,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-563-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Flores appeals the revocation of his

supervised release based on his being found illegally in the

United States after deportation in violation of the conditions of

his supervised release. He argues that his underlying conviction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). A defendant may not use the

revocation of supervised release to challenge his sentence for

the underlying offense based on Apprendi for the first time. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41501

-2-

United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Therefore, Rodriguez-Flores may not challenge his underlying

conviction in this appeal of the revocation of his supervised

release. See id.

Nonetheless, Rodriguez-Flores acknowledges that his attack

on his conviction is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve it for

Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496. This court must

follow Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court overrules it. 

United States v. Hernandez-Avalos, 251 F.3d 505, 507 & n.1

(5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C. 20549**

**** 

**Form10-K**

(MarkOne)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

**** 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

**** 

Commission file number0-16210

**** 

**ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES,LTD. 6**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

**** 

**** 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

**** 

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code (864) 239-1000

**** 

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

**** 

None

**** 

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

**** 

Unitsof Limited Partnership Interest

(Title ofclass)

**** 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or15(d) of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

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. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’sknowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated byreference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.[X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”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 the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

**** 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**NOTICE REGARDING ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**

 

Arthur Andersen LLP were the independentauditors for Concerto Software, Inc. until June 28, 2002. After reasonable efforts, Concerto Software, Inc. was unable to obtain from Arthur Andersen LLP the consent required for the incorporation by reference of their report on ConcertoSoftware’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, intoregistration statements filed by Concerto Software, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission that are currently effective under the Securities Act of 1933. Accordingly, pursuant to and in reliance upon Rule 437a of the Securities Act of1933, Concerto Software, Inc. is permitted to dispense with the requirement to file their consent. Because Arthur Andersen LLP have not consented to the incorporation by reference of their report, investors may not be able to recover damages againstArthur Andersen LLP under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP that are included in this report or any omissions to state amaterial fact required to be stated therein.
J. 

Nevada courts are bound to give the decisions of the federal 

courts preclusive effect in this matter. Semtek Intl Inc. v. Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 508-09 (2001) (describing the preclusive effect 

that state courts must give to federal courts acting with diversity 

jurisdiction); Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170-71 (1938) (describing the 

preclusive effect that states must give federal courts acting with federal 

question jurisdiction); Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 

1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) (applying issue preclusion where the issues 

are identical, the issues were actually and necessarily litigated, and a final 

ruling on the merits was issued). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. J Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Bobby L. Franklin 

Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Manuel Occiano, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of RevCare, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controlsor in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:  December 29, 2004
|   |
|--------|
|   |
|   | /S/: Manuel Occiano |   |
|   | Manuel Occiano |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Acting  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended September 30, 2009,
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                              |  |                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Signature              |  | Title                                        |  | Date             
|                       |  |                                             
|/s/ Andrew J. Norstrud |  | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial |  |                  
|Andrew J. Norstrud     |  | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer     |  | November 13, 2009



32
cc: Vernon Wesley Nelson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

1947K e
#### The State ex rel. Cliff, Appellant, *v.*Auburndale Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cliff v. Auburndale Co.,*Ill Ohio St.3d 490, 2006-Ohio-6111.]

(No. 2005-1812

Submitted September 19, 2006

Decided December 6, 2006.)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This case involves appellant James W. Cliffs eligibility for temporary total disability compensation. On November 30, 1995, Cliff hurt his right shoulder while working for Fenton Rigging Company, and a workers’ compensation claim was allowed. Shortly thereafter, he switched jobs and began working for appellee Auburndale Company. He worked there for approximately one year before his shoulder condition forced him to retire.

{¶ 2} After his retirement, Cliff was diagnosed with skin cancer that was attributed to his 35 years of sun exposure as an ironworker. A workers’ compensation claim was allowed, and under the “last injurious exposure” theory, it was allowed against Auburndale.

{¶ 3} Cliff moved for temporary total disability compensation from August 24, 2000, to January 28, 2002, based on his cancer. On August 27, 2002, appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied the request after finding that Cliff had voluntarily abandoned the workforce.

{¶ 4} Cliff filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. On September 30, 2003, the magistrate issued her report, recommending that the writ be denied. On September 9, 2004, the commission awarded Cliff permanent total disability compensation retroactive to November 5, 2002, based on the cancer claim. The court of appeals, on August 4, 2005, adopted the magistrate’s report and denied the writ, thus upholding the commission’s denial of temporary total disability compensation. *State ex rel. Cliff v. Auburndale Co.,*10th Dist. No. 03AP-365, 2005-Ohio-3984, 2005 WL 1840130, ¶ 7.

{¶ 5} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.

*491Gerald R. Grubbs, for appellant.

Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., and David L. O’Connell, for appellee Auburndale Company.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

{¶ 6} The commission has issued inconsistent orders. On August 27, 2002, it denied temporary total disability compensation after finding that Cliff had voluntarily abandoned the workforce. Yet two years later, it awarded permanent total disability compensation and in so doing, implicitly declared that Cliffs workforce departure had been *involuntary.*See *State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 202, 631 N.E.2d 138. Because we are unable to proceed further due to this conflict, we return the cause to the commission for further consideration and an amended order.

Judgment reversed and cause returned.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael G. Archbold, Chief Financial Officer of 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:



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



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 12, 2008



/s/ Michael G. ArchboldMichael G. Archbold Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
(March 20, 2008)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Reyes, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 841]

*422We perceive no basis for reducing the proposed sentence. We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments for additional leniency. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court, entered on November 27, 2007 (45 AD3d 458 [2007]), recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.10(a)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 5
                                     TO THE
                 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EXECUTIVES OF
                        NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.


         THIS AMENDMENT made as of the 31st day of August, 2001, by National
Service Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NSI");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, NSI has previously established the Supplemental Retirement
Plan for Executives of National Service Industries, Inc. (the "Plan") for the
benefit of its eligible employees and their beneficiaries; and

         WHEREAS, effective as of August 31, 2001, NSI will restructure its
business operations and form several new subsidiary corporations; and

         WHEREAS, NSI desires to amend the Plan in connection with the
restructuring; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Article XI of
the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                                       1.

         The Plan is hereby amended by incorporating the following as the new
Schedule 1:

                                   "Schedule 1
                               Adopting Employers

         National Service Industries, Inc. (CA) f/k/a NSI Enterprises, Inc.
         L&C Spinco, Inc.
         The Zep Group, Inc.
         L&C Lighting Group, Inc."

                                       2.

         This Amendment shall be effective August 31, 2001.

                                       3.

         Except as provided herein, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect.


<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NSI has caused this Amendment No. 5 to be executed
by its duly authorized corporate officers as of the date and year first written
above.


ATTEST:                             NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.



By: /s/ Carol E. Morgan             By: /s/ Kenyon W. Murphy
   ----------------------------        --------------------------------
# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

May 11, 2010

ERRATA

Appeal No. 2009-1391

PATENT RIGHTS v. VIDEO GAMING

Decided: May 10, 2010

Precedential Opinion

Please make the following change:



### Page 12, line 21, change “find that this content ion strains” to --consider this contention

to strain--.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 Sharper Image Corporation, a Delaware corporation (Sharper Image), does
hereby certify that:



| | a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 (the Form 10-K) of Sharper Image fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Sharper Image.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard J. Thalheimer           
|    |  | Richard J. Thalheimer               
|    |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | May 3, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REINALDO FANTAUZZI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 317 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REINALDO FANTAUZZI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 318 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# Requests Report (3)

# image3.emf

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image6.png
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-14-00041-CR

Kyle MILLER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR5502

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion to Obtain Transcripts of Motion Hearing is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,394]


Insert Molding Technologies, Inc., Warren, PA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 26, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Insert Molding Technologies, 
Inc., Warren, Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility produce 
molded plastic parts.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-15743 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.1

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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J. Lipman, 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:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: July 31, 2009                 
|                                     
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman              
|Nathaniel J. Lipman                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer