alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry BEGAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-2253.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 16, 2008.

Margaret A. Katze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant.

David N. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, (David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

In *Begay v. United States,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), the Supreme Court reversed that portion of our decision in *United States v. Begay,*470 F.3d 964 (10th Cir.2006), holding that Mr. Begay’s conviction of felony driving while intoxicated is a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We therefore vacate that portion of our prior decision so holding and reinstate the remainder of the court’s December 12, 2006, opinion. We REMAND to the district court with instructions to vacate the sentence and re-sentence Mr. Begay subject to our prior decision as modified by the Supreme Court.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and IOth Cir. R. 32.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-3-1998
<CASH>                                          32,034
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,050
<INVENTORY>                                     71,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,317
<PP&E>                                         872,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,979,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,584
<BONDS>                                        984,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       750,190
<OTHER-SE>                                   (130,313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,979,167
<SALES>                                        349,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,758
<CGS>                                           85,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  335,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,948)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,687)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,563)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

# Certificate of
Principal Financial Officer pursuant to section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report), I, George E. Mazzotta, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CNET Networks, 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 Section
               15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: November 8, 2005/s/George E. Mazzotta
George E. MazzottaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and will be retained
by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 15
- 00106
- CR

TERRY LEE BAUDER, JR

. APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 367TH DISTR ICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. F

- 2002

- 0042

- E

---------- 

### MEMORA NDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Terry Lee Bauder Jr. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s March 2015 denial of his March 2015 postconviction motion to modify or reduce his 2002 sentence. On August 12, 2015, we notified Appellant of our concern

tha t we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, indicating that the trial court’s order is not an appealable order or final judgment and that only the Texas Court of

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over postconviction habeas matters, and we stated that this app eal was subject to dismissal unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. After a felony conviction becomes final, the procedure outlined in article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure is a prisoner’s exclusive remedy for relief; this court has no jurisdiction. 2 We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDN ER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 15, 2015

2 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 1, 3(a), 5 (West 201 5 ); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91) (orig. proceeding) (holding court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant postconviction relief by ordering trial court to vacate a final conviction on basis of allegedly invalid guilty plea ); cf. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (contrasting court of appeals ’ s authority to rule on matters potentially related to forthcoming, but not pending, article 11.07 application with court of crimin al appeals ’ s exclusive jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5

<S>                                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                               3566009
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         345597
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           0
<PP&E>                                                              29439200
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      23398981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       9951825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      0
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                           9827231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         9951825
<SALES>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     2092094
<CGS>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    10096842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (8004748)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (8004748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (8004748)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (116.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              0


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AME R I C A J E AN NE T T E DE L E ON C OL OC HO , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71931 A ge nc yN o. A 044- 804- 462 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , a n dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A m er i caJe annett e de L eon C ol ocho , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f

r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m ova l or de r . W e ha ve 

# FI LED OC T 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71931 2 j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. “ [W ] e r evi ew for w hether s ub st ant i al evi dence s upport s af

i ndi ng byc l e a r , une qui voc a l a nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha t[ C ol oc ho] ab a n d o n e d[ h e r ] la w f

u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n c e in th e U n ite dS ta te s .” Khodaghol i an v . A s h c r o ft , 3 3 5 F .3 d1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe gove rnm e ntm e ti t s bur de n of s how i ng C ol oc ho aba ndone d he rl a w f ul pe rm a ne nt re si dentst atus because the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatshe i nt ended t o p r o mp t l yr e tu rn t o th e Un i t e dSt a t e s d u r i n g th e s e v e n y e a r s s h e l i v e di n El S a lv a d o r . Se e Si ngh v . R e no , 11 3 F . 3d 15 12 , 15 14 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( st at i ng that “[ t]h e r e le v a n t in te n t is n o t th e in te n t to r e tu rn u ltim a te ly , b u t th e in te n t to r e tu rn to th e U n ite dS ta te s w ith in ar e la tiv e lys h o rt p e r io d ” ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e a g e n c yth a t Khodaghol i an is d is tin g u is h ab le . See Khodaghol i an , 33 5 F . 3d at10 07 -08 (pet i t i on erhad a cont i nu ou s, un i nt errupt ed i nt e ntt o r e turn t o the U . S . ba s e d on e vi de nc e he s oughtt o s e l l a s s e t s a nd w i nd up h is a f f a ir s w h ile in I r a n a n dd u r in g o n e s ix - m o n th v is it c a r e df o rate rm in a llyill m other and orph aned neph ew s) .08- 71931 3 C ol oc ho’ s c ont e nt i ons tha tthe I Jappl i e d the i nc orr e c tbur de n of pr oof a nd th a t th e B I A ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yf a ilin g to c o n s id e ra ll o f

th e r e le v a n t f

a c to r s is b e lie db yth e r e c o r d . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2765 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2765

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the 
requirement that permit applications for the discharge of pollutants be 
    approved by disinterested board members, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. 
   Calvert) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the 
requirement that permit applications for the discharge of pollutants be 
    approved by disinterested board members, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sunshine on Conflicts Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. APPROVAL BY DISINTERESTED BOARD MEMBERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 402(a) of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(6) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue a rule to prohibit any 
member of a board or body that approves permit applications or portions 
thereof from voting upon, or seeking to influence, the approval of any 
permit in which that member has a direct or indirect financial 
interest, as defined in applicable State law.''.
    (b) No Force or Effect of Existing Regulation.--Section 123.25(c) 
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no further force 
or effect after the earliest of the date on which a rule is issued 
under section 402(a)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1342(a)(6)) or the end of the 120-day period beginning on the 
date of the enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 3.2


                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                                     BYLAWS
                                       OF
                          CLARK-SCHWEBEL HOLDINGS, INC.


Section 1 of Article III of the Bylaws of Clark-Schwebel Holdings, Inc. shall be
amended, effective as of July 14, 1997, and thereafter only for so long as any
shares of Senior Preferred Stock (as defined in the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation) remain outstanding, to add the following paragraph
at the end of such Section 1:

             Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon any occurrence of a Voting
Rights Triggering Event (as such term is defined in Section 5(c)(i) of Part B of
Article Fourth of the corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation), then, in any such case, the number of directors constituting the
Board of Directors shall be increased to permit the holders of the majority of
the then outstanding Senior Preferred Stock (as such term is defined in the
corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation), voting
separately as one class, to elect two directors. The term of any director
elected pursuant to the foregoing sentence shall terminate in accordance with
the provisions of Section 5(c)(ii) of Part B of Article Fourth of the
corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, whereupon the
number of directors constituting the Board of Directors automatically shall be
decreased by two.
#### Fang LIN, Petitioner v. Michael B MUKASEY, U S Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-61148

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2008.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fang Lin petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. Lin argues that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely.

This court has jurisdiction to review the issue. *See Panjwani v. Gonzales,*401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir.2005). In reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, this court applies a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard, regardless of the basis *655of the alien’s request for relief. *Lara v. Trominski,*216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000).

The BIA determined that the motion was both numerically barred and untimely and that Lin did not qualify for an exception to the numerical and time restrictions for filing motions to reopen found in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The BIA determined further that, even if the motion was not barred, it would deny it “as a matter of discretion” for the same reason it had denied Lin’s earlier motion to reopen, namely, Lin’s fraudulent representations made during the immigration proceedings.

The denial as a matter of discretion represents a separate, “independent” ground for denying a motion to reopen. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Lin does not address or contest the BIA’s determination that, even if the motion was not barred, it would deny the motion “as a matter of discretion” on the basis of her fraudulent representations. She likewise does not contest that she made such fraudulent representations.

Because Lin has not addressed the denial of her motion to reopen as a matter of discretion, she has abandoned the issue on appeal. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, Lin’s petition for review is DENIED. *See Walker v. Thompson,*214 F.3d 615, 624-25 (5th Cir.2000).

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,178)
<INVENTORY>                                     66,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,915
<PP&E>                                         118,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                (73,435)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,778
<BONDS>                                        312,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,139
<OTHER-SE>                                   (157,596)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,998
<SALES>                                        343,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               343,659
<CGS>                                          219,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,674)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,356)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,064
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,420)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2822 

To require that the United States Attorney, and the United States Marshal, 

appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands reside in the Northern 

Mariana Islands; and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 16, 2011 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the 

following bill 

AUGUST 30, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require that the United States Attorney, and the United 

States Marshal, appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands reside in the Northern Mariana Islands; 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. RESIDENCE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 

4 Section 545 of title 28 of the United States Code is 

5 amended by striking the 3d sentence. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2822 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESIDENCE OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL. 

2 Section 561 of title 28 of the United States Code is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in the 1st sentence of subsection (c) by 

5 striking ‘‘, except’’ and all that follows through ‘‘dis6 trict’’, and 

7 (2) in subsection (e)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

9 and inserting a period, 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘that—’’ and all that fol11 lows through ‘‘(1) the’’, and inserting ‘‘that 

12 the’’, and 

13 (C) by striking paragraph (2). 

14 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

15 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

16 take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

17 this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS