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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10881

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, also known

as Javier Martinez-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-30-C-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Esteban Martinez-Ramirez 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. 

Martinez-Ramirez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 03-10881

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Martinez-Ramirez maintains that

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

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. 

Martinez-Ramirez 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.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of OrthoLogic Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of, Thomas R.
Trotter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sherry A. Sturman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his or her respective knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Thomas R. Trotter
Thomas R. Trotter
President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Sherry A. Sturman
Sherry A. Sturman
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and
will be retained by OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43533-43534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-175-000.
    Applicants: Caney River Wind Project, LLC, Rocky Ridge Wind 
Project, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 
for the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Expedited 
Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Caney River Wind Project, 
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20170908-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/17.


[[Page 43534]]


    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2036-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: FPL Response to Deficiency Letter 
and Request for Shortened Comment Period to be effective 10/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2453-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC 
MBR Tariff to be effective 9/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20170908-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2454-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1518R13 Arkansas Electric 
Cooperative Corp NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2455-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SPS-WILD-E&P Agrmt-697-0.0.0 
to be effective 9/12/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19726 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          32,691
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                14,912
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    153,247
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         169,994
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           166,301
<LOANS>                                      1,490,267
<ALLOWANCE>                                     22,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,891,584
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,292,509
<SHORT-TERM>                                   351,384
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             46,504
<LONG-TERM>                                     90,665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,034
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,488
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,891,584
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 59,340
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,672
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   316
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                69,328
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              29,458
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,754
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           27,574
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 30,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,819
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,819
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,605
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.92
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,670
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   331
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 14,347
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                22,807
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      435
<RECOVERIES>                                       108
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               22,480
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            22,480
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         21,401
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00255-CR

Francisco MEDINA-RUBIO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-05-0131-CRA

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2012

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED 

Francisco Medina-Rubio was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Medina-Rubio to twenty years’ 

confinement and seventy years’ confinement, respectively, and ordered the terms to run 

concurrently. Medina-Rubio timely appealed the judgments.

Medina-Rubio’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief 

in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without 
04-11-00255-CR

- 2 -

merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Medina-Rubio was provided a copy of the brief and motion to 

withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record1 and file his own brief. 

Medina-Rubio has not filed a pro se brief. 

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with 

counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Medina-Rubio’s counsel and 

affirm the trial court’s judgments. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.–San 

Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, 

no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Medina-Rubio 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 after either this opinion is 

rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is 

overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be 

filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for 

discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Do not publish

 1

Counsel is reminded that he should explain the procedure for obtaining the record from the trial court clerk. See 

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

#### In re Adoption of Omar Gustavo Castillo In re Adoption of Ali Ersen Ercins

Case No. CA03-31

Case No. CA03-32

January 25, 2005

By Judge William H. Ledbetter, Jr.

Harry Fry, a resident of Spotsylvania County, seeks to adopt two male adults. He filed petitions alleging that each of the adoptee’s best interests would be served by the adoption. With each petition he also filed the adoptee’s consent.

As is customary in all adoptions in this Court, the Court referred these matters for investigation under Virginia Code § 63.2-1208. Department of Social Services filed a report recommending denial of the adoption in each case.

On January 10, 2005, pursuant to notice, Mr. Fry, Mr. Castillo, Mr. Ercins, and counsel appeared. They presented evidence and arguments in support of the petitions.

Mr. Castillo is a 3 3-year-old citizen of El Salvador. He came to the United States in 1991. There is some question as to whether he is a legal immigrant (he testified that he has a “case pending” regarding that issue), but he does possess a valid employment authorization card issued by Immigration Naturalization Service. Mr. Castillo met Mr. Fry in 1998. He works part-time and attends Northern Virginia Community College where Mr. Fry teaches. He lives with Mr. Fry.

Mr. Ercins, 27, is a citizen of Turkey. He came to the United States on a student visa in 1999. He has completed his education (an M.B.A. from Strayer College), and his visa is due to expire this summer. He met Mr. Fry on the *23Internet before coming to the United States, and they continued their communications. He has lived with Mr. Fry since 2001.

In Virginia, an adult can adopt another adult under certain circumstances. Pertinent here, the adoption of any person 18 years of age or older is permissible if (1) the adoptee is at least 15 years younger than the petitioner, (2) the petitioner and adoptee have know each other for at least five years, (3) both parties are residents of Virginia and have been for at least two years, and (4) for good cause shown. Virginia Code § 63.2-1243.

The first three requirements appear to have been met, although the court questions whether persons who are not citizens of the United States and are in the country either illegally or on a soon-to-expire visa can be legal “residents” as that term is used in the adoption statutes. (Also, it seems that Mr. Fry and Mr. Ercins did not know one another for five years prior to the filing of the adoption petition, as the statute requires, but the five-year requirement has now been satisfied.)

However, the fourth requirement, good cause, has not been shown. The parties offered not a scintilla of evidence to show “good cause” for either adoption. Of course, it is evident that these adoptions would enable the adoptees to continue to live in the United States and to live with Mr. Fry, but the court finds no “good cause” in such consequences of these adoptions. No other reason is given or can be discerned from the record.

Therefore, the adoptions will be denied.
**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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. 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"), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.











Date:
      May
      10, 2007    By: /s/
      Joseph M. Cummins


Joseph
      M.
      Cummins


President,
      Chief
      Executive Officer










Date:
      May
      8, 2007    By: /s/
      Gary W. Coy


Gary
      W.
      Coy


Vice
      President, Chief
      Financial Officer
### NUMBER 13 - 17 - 00 070 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras 1 

### , and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 2

Relator , the Texas Department of Public Safety , filed a petition for writ of
mandamus with request for emergency relief in this cause on January 30, 2017. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to vacate two orders rendered on January 6, 2017
which (1) strike relator’s expert witness , and (2) deny relator’s motion to strike the medical

1 Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 45.101 et seq. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).

2 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “ denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).2

experts retained by the real party in interest, Raquel Guzman. Through its request for emergency relief, relator seeks to stay the jury trial of this matter which is set for February 6, 2017. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Groc ery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys. , 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. , 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 ( Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator ha s not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the request for emergency relief. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 31st day of January, 2017

.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Profile Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Murphy Evans, Interim Principal Financial 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.




Date:  May 9, 2011
/s/ Murphy EvansMurphy EvansInterim Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,064,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,622,003
<PP&E>                                       1,443,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                 615,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,790,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,104,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,879
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,655,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,790,558
<SALES>                                        150,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               786,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,022,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,022,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,022,498)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James P. Labe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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

 

|   | /s/ James P. Labe  |
|--------|-------------------------|
| Name:  | James P. Labe           |
| Date:  | March 6, 2019           |