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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51416 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL MELENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-56-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Manuel Melendez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Melendez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Melendez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).No. 02-51416 -2-
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Melendez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30016 

Conference Calendar

 

BILLIE DEAN HOLIWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOEY DAVIDSON; ROLAND T. KAY; 

MIKE WORLEY; PAUL BLUNSCHI; DAVID BUFFINGTON;

BILLY JORDAN; JOE DAVIS; GLEN SPRINGFIELD;

ROYCE TONEY,

Defendants-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1665-M

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billie Dean Holiway appeals the dismissal of his civil

rights action as frivolous. Holiway contends that he was

deprived of property without due process and that police violated

his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his property.

We have reviewed the record and Holiway’s brief and we find

that Holiway’s due process contention is frivolous for the

reasons stated by the magistrate judge and relied upon by the 
No. 96-30016

- 2 -

district court. See Holiway v. Davidson, No. 95-CV-1665-M (W.D.

La. Nov. 16, 1995)(magistrate judge’s report). Resolution of

Holiway’s Fourth Amendment contention, raised for the first time

on appeal, would require us to make factual determinations

initially on appeal. Holiway has failed to present us with a

basis for finding that the district court plainly erred because

it found no Fourth Amendment violation. See Highlands Ins. Co.

v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 27 F.3d 1027, 1032 (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). 

We caution Holiway that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Holiway is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 19 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 43
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 19 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 44
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 19 Filed 08/08/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 45
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 19 Filed 08/08/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 46
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended September 30, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of
Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners,
L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certify, 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
Partnership.





Date:  November
      9, 2009
            /s/
      Joseph A. MillsJoseph
      A. MillsChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle RockEnergy
      G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy
      GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy
      Partners, L.P.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 9, 2020

No. 04-19-00688-CV

Marissa PETERSON,

Appellant

v.

HEB GROCERY CO., L.P.,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-19610

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 27, 2020, appellee filed a surreply brief and an unopposed motion for leave 

to file the surreply brief. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that appellee’s 

surreply brief filed on February 27, 2020 is accepted as filed. 

It is so ORDERED on March 9, 2020.

 

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

 Clerk of Court
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 PackItGreen Holdings, Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended DECEMBER 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shan Ho, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.    Date: August 28, 2009By:/s/ Shan HoShan Ho
President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40869

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HILARIO GARZA, III, also known as Lalo

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(C-95-CR-107-01)

March 7, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garza argues that the district court (1) erred in determining

the drug quantity attributable to him under the sentencing

guidelines; (2) erred in assessing a two-level upward adjustment

for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug

trafficking offense; and (3) denied Garza the equal protection of
1 United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir.

1992).

2

the laws by applying a two-level upward adjustment to his sentence

while refusing to enhance a co-conspirator’s sentence on the same

grounds. Garza also argues that he had ineffective assistance of

counsel at sentencing.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

find no reversible error. We do not review an assertion of

ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal unless the issue

has been presented to the district court; otherwise there is no

opportunity for the development of a record on the merits of the

claim.1 The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not

presented to the district court; therefore, we do not address this

issue. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
     We consent to the use in Registration Statements Nos. 33-16539, 33-37173,33-43155, 33-85270, 33-94438, 333-00855, 333-11385, 333-11387, 333-11389,333-25953, 333-48533, 333-48535, 333-46867, 333-62673, 333-45053, 333-66857,333-73007, 333-76233, 333-80281, 333-85135, 333-88586, 333-98735, 333-101331and 333-110664 of Stratex Networks, Inc. on Form S-8 and in RegistrationStatement No. 333-50820 on Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 of our reports dated May27, 2004, related to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of the Company as of and for the years ended March 31, 2004and 2003, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratex Networks,Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
#### SKRADSKI v. CLEVELAND CLIFFS IRON CO.

Civ. No. 26165.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

May 23, 1950.

*394D’Arnold Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Leckie, McCreary, Schlitz & Hinslea, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action brought under favor of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.

Plaintiff served four interrogatories upon defendant. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1 insofar as it calls for the production of certain reports.

The objection is well taken. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A., does not provide for the production of documents. Plaintiff must make use of Rule 34 with its more stringent requirements if he wishes these reports produced.

The objection will be sustained.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

HICA EDUCATION LOAN 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AVRIL L. ULETT, 

 Defendant. 

Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00434 (WJM)

OPINION 

 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.: 

Plaintiff HICA Education Loan Corporation (“HICA”) filed this action against 

Defendant Avril L. Ulett, a/k/a Avril L. Ulett Atwell, seeking a judgment against 

Defendant for an unpaid student loan. On September 10, 2012, the Court entered 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. This matter comes before the Court 

on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54. The motion is unopposed. There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

Under Local Civil Rule 54.2, attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a prevailing party 

in federal litigation only where authorized by statute, court rule, or contract. L. Civ. R. 

54.2 cmt. 2. The promissory note that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims in this case 

provides, “I promise to pay to the Student Loan Marketing Association, or a subsequent 

holder of this Promissory Note (‘Lender’), all sums disburse (hereafter ‘loan’) under the 

terms of this Note to discharge my prior loan obligations, plus interest and other fees 

which may become due as provided in this Note. If I fail to make payments on this Note 

when due, I will also pay reasonable collection costs, including attorneys’ fees, court 

costs, and late fees.” See Compl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 1. Because Defendant contractually 

agreed to pay collection costs to Plaintiff in this case, an award of reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs is warranted. 

Plaintiff requests that it be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,450.00 and 

costs in the amount of $450.00. In support of its request, Plaintiff attaches several 

supporting exhibits in accordance with Local Civil Rules 54.1(b) and 54.2(a). The Court 

Case 2:11-cv-00434-WJM-MF Document 16 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 100
2 

has reviewed the supporting exhibits and is satisfied that the number of hours worked, the 

billing rates, and the costs sought are reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is awarded $6,450.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and $450.00 in costs. An appropriate order follows. 

 

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J. 

Date: October 11, 2012

Case 2:11-cv-00434-WJM-MF Document 16 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 101
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blugrass Energy, Inc.. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the Period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Kenney Berscht, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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: (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/ John Kenney BerschtJohn Kenney BerschtChief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerMay 24, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:10-cv-03898-WJM -MF Document 1-2 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 130
Case 2:10-cv-03898-WJM -MF Document 1-2 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 131
Case 2:10-cv-03898-WJM -MF Document 1-2 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 132
Case 2:10-cv-03898-WJM -MF Document 1-2 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 133
Case 2:10-cv-03898-WJM -MF Document 1-2 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 134
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129741 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DETROIT BUILDING AUTHORITY, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Cross Plaintiff- Justices Appellee,

and

CITY OF DETROIT, Intervening Pl aintiff/CounterPlaintiff/Cross PlaintiffAppellant,

v SC: 129741 COA: 253479 WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Wayne CC: 02-234701-CH Defendant/Cross Defendant/ Counter Defendant-Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff/DefendantAppellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of March 27, 2006 , the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pendi ng the decision in In re Petition by Treasurer of Wayn e County for Foreclosure (Docket No. 129341). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on May 23, 2 007, 478 Mich 1 (2007), the application is again considered and, pursuan t to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgme nt of the Court of Appeals and we
REINSTATE the order of the Wayne County Circuit Court setting aside the foreclosure sale and quieting title to the pr operty in the plaintiff. The foreclosure sale of publicly owned property is prohibited. MCL 211.78g(1). Contrary to the Court of Appeals majority's conclusion, the Wa yne County Treasurer had reason to know that the property was publicly owned because there is no disp ute that the plaintiff Detroit Building_______________________________________ __ 2

Authority, which was in corporated by the in tervening plaintiff C ity of Detroit, MCL 123.951, was the owner of reco rd and had filed both a deed and an affidavit of property transfer notifying the co unty that the property was tax exempt.

M ARKMAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the decision to reverse the C ourt of Appeals; however, I would do so on different grounds. It is undisputed that th e city of Detroit was the taxpayer of record
in the local assessor’s office at the time of the foreclosure. Because the city's interest was “identifiable by reference to . . . [t]ax records in the office of the local assessor,” MCL 211.78i(6)(c), the Wayne County Treasurer was required to se nd notice by certified mail. MCL 211.78i(2). Moreover, be cause the city's interest was “reasonably identifiable”
under the records of the local assessor, merely posting a fo reclosure notice and publishing
such notice in a news paper was not constitutionally adequate. Mennonite Bd of Missions
v Adams , 462 US 791, 798-799 (1983). Accord ingly, the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the treasu rer "afforded the City the required due process.”

l0925 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2007

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise

V. : Crim. No. 11-132 (DRD)

CARLOS E. ALMONTE : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

application of defendant CARLOS E. ALMONTE (James Patton, Esq.,

appearing) for additional time to prepare for the sentencing of

the defendant, and the Court having heard and considered the

arguments of counsel for the defendant and the government during

a telephonic conference on January 8, 2013, and for good cause

shown,

It is on this

day of January 2013,

ORDERED that the following schedule is hereby set:

1. The Probation Department shall disclose the final

presentence investigation report no later than January 31, 2013;

2. Sentencing submissions of the parties shall be

submitted to the Court no later than March 1, 2013;

3. Responsive sentencing submissions of the parties shall

be submitted no later than March 22, 2013;

4. A status conference is set for April 2, 2013, at 10:00

a.m. before this Court; and

1
H

C

CC

U,

pJ

CD CDo ciF CD

CD

çt

çt CDH

0

UI

H

o LQ0

CD

çt $D

• Fl

LQ

H

(i

CD UI

H U)

(1)0 CD

ct

I)H

çt

(D(1)

0

Fl

(1)CD

Fl

OU

H

W

H

I:’I vi

H

U)

rtH

FlcJ)

C

H-Lu

H

0

rt

C4

CD
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of the Secretary

In order to comply with the mandate of section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

United Arab Emirates

Yemen, Republic of

Iraq is not included in this list, but its status with respect to future lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury.

Dated: July 1, 2009.

John L. Harrington,

International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy).

[FR Doc. E9-16213 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
Exhibit 23.1 

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Sonic Innovations, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-36562, 333-59988, 333-76250, 333-98303 and 333-99035) on Forms S-8of Sonic Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Sonic Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related 2002 information included in the consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2002annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Innovations, Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

 

March 26, 2003
tckm_ex101.htm






EXHIBIT 99.1





 




  





1











  













  





2











  













  





3











  











  





4











  









 




  





5











  









 




  





6











  









 




  





7











  









 




  





8











  









9