alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11220 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ALEXIS ADRIAN GUZMAN-GONZALEZ Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-204-ALL-H

-------------------- Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alexis Adrian Guzman-Gonzalez appeals his conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and the resulting sentence of 54 months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. He first challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Guzman-Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Guzman-Gonzalez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority ofNo. 04-11220 -2- the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 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 , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). GuzmanGonzalez 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. Guzman-Gonzalez also argues that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced him under the mandatory Guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because the district court sentenced Guzman-Gonzalez under a mandatory Guidelines regime, it committed Fanfan error. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). When a Fanfan error “is preserved in the district court by an objection, we will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless we can say the error is harmless.” United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). The Government concedes that Guzman-Gonzalez’s objection, which was grounded in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), was sufficient to preserve his Fanfan claim and that the harmless error standard of review applies. We conclude that the Government has not met its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would have imposed the sameNo. 04-11220 -3- sentence absent the error. See United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005). We therefore vacate GuzmanGonzalez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2013

No. 04-13-00032-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellant

v.

Jose Luis CHAPA,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CVK-000745-D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee Jose Luis Chapa’s brief was due March 27, 2013. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time was filed.

We order appellee to file his brief by April 15, 2013. If the brief is not filed by the date 

ordered, we will order the case submitted without an appellee’s brief.

____________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of April, 2013.

 ____________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

**OFFICEROF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe three months ended March 31, 2007 and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Hamm, InterimChief Executive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, thegeneral partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: June 6, 2007 | /s/ Harold Hamm                               |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|               | Harold Hamm                                   |
|               | Interim Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

 

----
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





/s/ Richard
                A. RappaportRichard
                A. RappaportPrincipal
                Executive OfficerOctober
                21, 2008
905 A.2d 869

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RODNEY ARMOUR, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
J.A.L., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4512 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; James Pierce, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Having reviewed the record in keeping with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm the disposition rendered after J.A.L. pleaded guilty to counts of grand theft of an automobile and dealing in stolen property, his withhold of adjudication after a disposition hearing on a third count for burglary of a dwelling, and his placement on juvenile probation for the various counts. We remand only for the trial court to enter- 2 -

a written order reflecting that the fourth count—grand theft—was merged with the dealing in stolen property count at the time of the plea as stated in the transcript of the plea hearing. See generally Lenker v. State, 151 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (affirming but remanding in an Anders proceeding for entry of a written record accurately reflecting the resolution of the various counts).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

KELLY and SALARIO, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
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 Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman

October 15, 2007
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1219 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student on 

whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. COONS, and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability 

if a student on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

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 ‘‘Domenic and Ed’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 437(d) of the Higher 

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended 

8 by inserting ‘‘or becomes permanently and totally disabled 

9 (as determined in accordance with regulations of the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:16 Apr 23, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1219.IS S1219

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1219 IS

1 retary), or if the student is unable to engage in any sub2 stantial gainful activity by reason of any medically deter3 minable physical or mental impairment that can be ex4 pected to result in death, has lasted for a continuous pe5 riod of not less than 60 months, or can be expected to 

6 last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months,’’ 

7 after ‘‘dies,’’. 

8 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub9 section (a) shall apply to any outstanding loan received 

10 by a parent before, on, or after the date of the enactment 

11 of this Act, and without regard to the onset date of the 

12 disability or impairment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 2:11-cv-00326-SRC-MAS Document 11 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 80
#### In the Matter of Tracy Larson, Respondent, v Darryl Gilliam, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 808]

Whether the appellant committed family offenses was a disputed factual issue. The determination of the Family Court regarding the credibility of witnesses, as the trier of fact, is entitled to great weight *(see Matter of Rankoth v Sloan,*44 AD3d 863 [2007]; *Matter of Dancer v Robertson,*38 AD3d 887 [2007]). The fair preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court’s determination, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two separate offenses of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection *(see Matter of Wallace v Wallace,*45 AD3d 599 [2007]; *Matter of Vankeuren v Craft,*39 AD3d 763 [2007]; *Matter of Bonsignore v Bonsignore,*37 AD3d 602 [2007]).

The appellant’s contention that the Family Court erred in admitting certain letters into evidence was not preserved for appellate review.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0643

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DANIEL TODD COLLINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 1, 2020, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2020

04/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0643
**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 Heratsi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anna
      Kazanchyan, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; 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/
                    Anna Kazanchyan, M.D
                Anna
                    Kazanchyan, M.D.
                  Principal
                    Executive Officer
                  Principal
                    Financial Officer
                  May
                    15, 2007
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000512 10-AUG-2017 03:06 PM
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00484

- CR Arthur Lee PARSONS , Appellant

v. The State of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 85th Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- 02236

- CR F

- 85 Honorable Jimmy Don Langley, Judge Presiding Opinion By: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 11, 2014
AFFIRMED , MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Arthur Lee Parsons pled guilty to the offense of violation of a protective order by assault, a third degree felony. There was no plea agreement. After hearing evidence on punishment , the
trial court sentenced Parson s to nine years in prison. Parsons appealed.
Parsons’s c ourt

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)

. Counsel states tha t Parsons was provided with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the brief , and was informed of04

- 13

- 00484

- CR his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n .1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.) . Parsons has not file d a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief. We agree that th is appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the t rial court is affirmed, and c ounsel ’ s motion to withdraw is granted

. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.) ; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1

. No substitute counsel wil l be appointed. Should Parsons wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion , or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appella te Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.4.
Karen Angelini, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0157

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 17, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2023

04/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0157
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<MULTIPLIER> 1 
        
<S>                     <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                               62,563,566 
<SECURITIES>                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,075,721 
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0 
<INVENTORY>                                   0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     91,585,105 
<PP&E>                                        0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       91,585,105 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,515,061 
<BONDS>                                       0 
<COMMON>                                      0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0 
<PREFERRED>                                   0 
<OTHER-SE>                                    0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         91,585,105 
<SALES>                                       0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     20,046,671 
<CGS>                                         0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     11,512,958 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       8,533,713 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   8,533,713 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0 
<CHANGES>                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                          8,533,713 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               208.27 
<EPS-DILUTED>                               208.27 
         

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports included (or incorporated by reference) in this Form 10-K into
the Company's previously filed Registration Statements (File Nos. 33-16539, 33-
37173, 33-43155, 33-85270, 33-94438, 333-00855, 333-11385, 333-11387, 333-11389
and 333-25953) on Form S-8.


                                                         /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Jose, California
June 26, 1997
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Maple Mountain Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marvin
Wosk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of September, 2006.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**Exhibit 10.1 to Hiland Holdings GP, LP 1****st**** Quarter 2009 10-Q**

 

**Compensation of Conflicts Committee Members inConnection with Going Private Proposal**

 

On February 19,2009, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC,the general partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Partnership”), authorized the Conflicts Committee of the Board(the “Conflicts Committee”) to consider and respond to a proposal made byHarold Hamm, whereby Mr. Hamm and certain of his affiliates would acquireall of the outstanding common units of the Partnership that are not owned by Mr. Hamm,his affiliates or the Hamm family trusts (the “Proposal”).  The Conflicts Committee is composed of twoindependent directors, Dr. Bobby B. Lyle and Dr. Cheryl L. Evans. On February 19,2009, the Board determined that, for service on the Conflicts Committee inconnection with the Conflicts Committee’s consideration of the Proposal, allmembers of the Conflicts Committee will receive a one-time fee of $30,000, inlieu of the prior arrangement of $1,000 per meeting. No additional fees areexpected to be paid to the members of the Conflicts Committee for attendingmeetings of the Conflicts Committee during the time period in which theConflicts Committee is considering the Proposal. The fees payable to themembers of the Conflicts Committee are in addition to the annual fees receivedby such directors for their services as a member of the Partnership’s Board andother committees thereof.

 

----
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2


                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.
                          Certified Public Accountants
                              25/F., Wing On Centre
                           111 Connaught Road Central
                                    Hong Kong




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Sorrento Networks Corporation
(formerly Osicom Technologies, Inc.)
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-28863, 333-22291 and 333-51445) on Form S-3 and No. 333-92111 on Form
S-8 of Osicom Technologies, Inc. of our report, dated March 3, 2000, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Uni Precision Industrial Limited and
Subsidiaries as of January 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
income, cash flows and changes in shareholders' equity for the years ended
January 31, 1999 and 2000, expressed in Hong Kong dollars.




                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.

Hong Kong
May 1, 2001