alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-20-00516-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

SAMUEL E. BENSON, III, Appellant,

v.

FIESTA NISSAN INC., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 398th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for rehearing. This Court 

previously issued a memorandum opinion dismissing Cause No. 13-20-00516-CV on July 

1, 2021. The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's motion, is of the 

opinion that, in the interest of justice, it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant 

appellant's motion for rehearing and set aside the dismissal for want of jurisdiction, and 
2

we withdraw our previous memorandum opinion and judgment. Said cause remains 

pending before the Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

9th day of September, 2021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           12275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    74765
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3741
<INVENTORY>                                      93770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                192788
<PP&E>                                          104384
<DEPRECIATION>                                   28701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  297037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            96396
<BONDS>                                         134677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                       49205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    297037
<SALES>                                         342302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                342302
<CGS>                                           285144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   285144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 93165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (49652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49652)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.28)
        

</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1233 

To provide relief to community banks, to promote access to capital for 

community banks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide relief to community banks, to promote access 

to capital for community banks, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Bank Ac5 cess to Capital Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERNAL CONTROL ATTESTATION REQUIREMENT 

7 EXEMPTIONS. 

8 Section 404(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

9 U.S.C. 7262(c)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1233 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘that is neither’’ and inserting 

2 the following: ‘‘that— 

3 ‘‘(1) is neither’’; 

4 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert5 ing ‘‘; or’’; and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(2) is an insured depository institution or a 

8 depository institution holding company (as those 

9 terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal De10 posit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) with less 

11 than $5,000,000,000 in total consolidated assets.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORT ON FINANCIAL CONDITION AND 

13 MANAGEMENT. 

14 Section 36(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

15 Act (12 U.S.C. 1831m(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 

16 ‘‘that has more than $5,000,000,000 in total consolidated 

17 assets’’ after ‘‘institution’’. 

18 SEC. 4. REGULATION D. 

19 (a) DEFINITION OF ACCREDITED INVESTORS.—Not 

20 later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

21 Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend 

22 section 230.501(a)(5)(i)(A) of title 17, Code of Federal 

23 Regulations, to read as follows: 

24 ‘‘(A) The person’s primary residence shall 

25 be included as an asset;’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1233 IS

1 (b) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF PURCHASERS.—Not 

2 later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

3 Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend 

4 section 230.506(b)(2)(i) of title 17, Code of Federal Regu5 lations, to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF PUR7 CHASERS.—There are no more than or the 

8 issuer reasonably believes that there are no 

9 more than 70 purchasers of securities from 

10 the issuer in any offering under this sec11 tion.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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.                  

###### U.S. Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1629]

      ( print page 32891)    
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Port Authority of the Greater Oklahoma City Area, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 106, has requested manufacturing authority on behalf of Industrial Gasket, Inc. d/b/a International Group (IG), within FTZ 106 in Mustang, Oklahoma (FTZ Docket 37-2008, filed 5/28/2008);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (73 FR 31811-31812, 6/4/2008) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

                    The application for manufacturing authority under zone procedures within FTZ 106 on behalf of IG, as described in the application and                     **Federal Register**                     notice, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce  for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16280 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 03-20484

_______________

COMMINT, INC.; COMMINT TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; AND W. KEITH KELLEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

STEVEN BUCH; JAY R. SEVERAL; ETRAC SOLUTIONS, INC.;

AND ROBERT ANDREW ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-02-CV-2982

_________________________

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and

WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiffs sued in state court, and

defendants, after removing to federal court,

sought to compel arbitration of all claims

pursuant to an arbitration clause in one of

several related agreements. The district court

denied arbitration, and defendants appeal.

We have read the briefs and have heard the

arguments of counsel and have reviewed pertinent portions of the record. We conclude

that the arbitration clause is not enforceable

against parties that are not signatories to the

agreement that containsthat clause. The order

appealed from is 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.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 18, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-11561

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00142-CR-ORL-22-DAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOSE RAMOS, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 18, 2006)

Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Ramos, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to receive, possess, pass, utter

and publish forged and altered money orders with intent to defraud in violation of
2

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 500, and to nine substantive counts of possessing forged

and altered money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 473, and 500. He appeals

the restitution part of his sentence raising three issues, each of which is foreclosed

by binding precedent.

Ramos’ contention that the use of certain invoices to establish the amount of

loss for restitution purposes violates Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.

Ct. 1354 (2004), is contrary to our holding in United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d

1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Ramos’ contention that allowing a judge to make factfindings necessary to

establish the amount of restitution violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), or United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), is contrary to our holding in Dohrmann v. United States, ___ F.3d ___,

No. 05-13560, 2006 WL 623652 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2006). The thorough and

persuasive supplemental letter brief the government filed in this case convinces us

that, even if we were writing on a clean slate in regard to this issue, cf. Fed. R.

App. P. 35, the Dohrmann decision is correct. 

Finally, Ramos’ argument that United States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330

(11th Cir. 2004), means in the calculation of the amount of restitution he can only

be held responsible for his own conduct and not that of his co-conspirators is
3

foreclosed by United States v. Alas, 196 f.3d 1250, 1251 (11th Cir. 1999), which

held that “conspirators are liable for all of the acts and foreseeable consequences of

the conspiracy.” Indeed, Dickerson itself held that the amount of restitution may

include related conduct for which the defendant was not convicted if the loss

flowed directly from the conspiracy or scheme of which he was a part. 

AFFIRMED.
II 

Calendar No. 121 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1272 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth 

Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 19, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode 

Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIZABETH BUFFUM CHACE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 575 Dexter Street in Central 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1272 RS

1 Falls, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Elizabeth Buffum 

7 Chace Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 121 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1272 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuffum Chace Post Office’’. tral Falls, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Elizabeth al Service located at 575 Dexter Street in CenJUNE 19, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**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 ofIndependent Asset Management Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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:

 

|   | (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/ Anthony N. DeMint                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony N. DeMint                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | President and Chief Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                |
|   | March			13, 2006                                                                                                                                                      |
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 17

- 00020
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A .L.M.
- F., A.M., J.A.
- F., N.A.
- F., AND E.A.
- F., CH ILDREN

From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015
- 3287
- 3

ORDER
The State’s brief in this appeal of a trial court’s termination of parental rights order was due April 18, 2017. By motion filed on April 13, 2017, the State request s an additional 21 days to prepare its brief because the State has been working on “other matters,” mentioning briefs recently filed in appeals in criminal cases. Appeals in termination of paren tal right cases are accelerated and should be brought to a final disposition by this Court within 180 days from the date the notice of appeal is filed

. See T EX

. R. A PP
. P . 28.4(a)(1); T EX

. R. J UD
. A DMIN . 6.2(a). Thus, briefs, including the State’s , in termination of parental rights appeal s should be given priority

over “other matters

. ”In the Interest of A.L.M.

- F., A.M., J.A.

- F., N. A.

- F., and E.A.

- F., Children Page 2

Accordingly, t he State’s motion for an extension of time to file its brief is denied. The State’s brief is due May 8, 2017.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion denied Order issued and filed April 26 , 2017 Publish
Case 2:11-cr-00037-WHW Document 12 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00037-WHW Document 12 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11776 and #11777]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-1843-DR), dated 06/11/2009.

*Incident:*                         Flooding and ice jams.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/28/2009 through 05/31/2009.                    

*Effective Date:*                         07/01/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/10/2009.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/11/2010.                    

# 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 Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Alaska, dated 06/11/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Primary REAAs (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):

Lower Yukon REAA (32) Yupiit REAA (54)

All other REAAs and boroughs contiguous to the above named primary REAAs have previously been declared. 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. E9-16408 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 21-60818

Summary Calendar

____________

Jose Luis Morales-Cardoso, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A076 596 991

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Luis Morales-Cardoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying 

his motion for reconsideration. We review the BIA’s decision “under a 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60818 Document: 00517004316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023
No. 21-60818

2

highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 

484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Morales-Cardoso argues that based on Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. 

Ct. 1474 (2021), and Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), a notice to 

appear (NTA) is defective, and does not convey jurisdiction to an 

immigration court, if the NTA fails to provide the hearing date and time. He 

acknowledges that his jurisdictional challenge regarding the NTA is 

foreclosed under circuit precedent, but he wishes to preserve the issue for 

further review and contends that this case warrants remand so that the BIA 

may further consider the effects of Pereira and Niz-Chavez.

Circuit precedent forecloses his jurisdictional argument. See CastilloGutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2022); Maniar v. Garland, 

998 F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021). The regulations, rather than 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229(a), “govern what a notice to appear must contain to constitute a valid 

charging document.” Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Under the regulations, an NTA “is sufficient to 

commence proceedings even if it does not include the time, date, or place of 

the initial hearing.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying on the merits the 

motion for reconsideration, we need not consider Morales-Cardoso’s 

remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As 

a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 

the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60818 Document: 00517004316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2023