alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20365

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DENYS RAMIREZ-PADILLA, also known as Denys Iban Ramirez Padilla, also 

known as Ramiro Bruno, also known as Melvin Ramirez, 

true name, Melvin Tarik Ramirez-Padilla,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-97

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Denys Ramirez-Padilla (Ramirez) pleaded guilty to being an alien 

unlawfully found in the United States after a previous deportation in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to 57 months of 

imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Ramirez

argues that the district court imposed a sentence in violation of the Sixth 

 

* 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 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20365 Document: 00513370235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
No. 15-20365

2

Amendment because it was based upon a judge-found fact not admitted by him 

or proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he challenges 

the district court’s determination that he reentered the United States in 2008

while still under a criminal justice sentence, in spite of his contention that he 

reentered the country in 2011. Ramirez explains that this determination 

resulted in the addition of two points to his criminal history score, and thus, a 

higher advisory guidelines sentencing range. Ramirez relies on Justice Scalia’s 

statement in a concurring opinion in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 372-

75 (2007), for the assertion that sentences within the statutory maximum term 

of imprisonment would violate the Sixth Amendment if they would be 

unreasonable but for the consideration of a fact found by the sentencing judge 

and not by the jury. He notes that the reasonableness of the 57-month sentence 

was based solely on the district court’s determination that Ramirez had not 

been truthful about his reentry date. However, Ramirez has filed a motion for 

summary disposition, conceding that his as-applied Sixth Amendment 

challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence is foreclosed by this court’s 

decision in United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011).

As he concedes, Ramirez is correct that his as-applied Sixth Amendment 

challenge is foreclosed by Hernandez, 633 F.3d at 374. In Hernandez, we held 

that a sentence within the statutory maximum that is based upon judge-found 

facts does not violate the Sixth Amendment. Id. Accordingly, Ramirez’s 

motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-20365 Document: 00513370235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BEXAR COUNTY, et al

., Plaintiff s

- Appellee s

v.

ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR., as Administrator and Individually as Heir to the Estate of Johnnie Mae King

, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2022

- 2211

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas in No. 5:22

- cv

- 00374

- XR, Judge

Xavier Rodriguez.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Appellee s move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. R o w land J. Martin, Jr. opposes the motion

. This appeal stems from a 2014 Texas state court action filed by state tax authorities against Mr. Martin regarding a dispute over real property in Bexar County, Texas. In Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/23/2022BEXAR COUNTY v. MARTIN 2

April 2022, Mr. Martin removed the case to t he United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

T he district court granted appellees ’ motion to remand forlack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied Mr. Martin’s motion for reconsideration, and remanded the case to state

court. This appeal followed.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. This court generally has jurisdiction only over district court cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States

Patent and Trademar k Office, § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). Although Mr. Martin’s notice of appeal reference s § 1346, th at provision is not applica ble here because

the United States is not a party to this action. Nor can jurisdiction on this matter be predicated on the “Big Tucker Act,” ECF No. 1

- 2, because that provision applies only to claims presented to the United States Court of Federal Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Finally, to the extentthat Mr. Martin’s response argues that this court has jurisdiction in this case based on its jurisdiction over his separate appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, we must re ject that argument.

When we lack jurisdiction, we will transfer the case to another court where the case “could have been brought at the time it was filed,” “if it is in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, however, Mr. Martin already fil ed an appeal with the appropriate regional circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Appeal

No. 22

- 50718

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/23/2022BEXAR COUNTY v. MARTIN 3

Novem ber 23 , 2022

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 23, 2022 Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 11/23/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K OF BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                            124,560
<SECURITIES>                       90,250
<RECEIVABLES>                       9,870
<ALLOWANCES>                        1,180
<INVENTORY>                        77,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  344,806
<PP&E>                            220,500
<DEPRECIATION>                     48,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    701,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              97,492
<BONDS>                           405,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        143,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      701,583
<SALES>                           851,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  851,967
<CGS>                             622,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     622,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 32,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    27,864
<INCOME-TAX>                       10,809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                17,055
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       17,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3135 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3135

To amend the provisions of title 40, United States Code, commonly known 
    as the Davis-Bacon Act, to raise the threshold dollar amount of 
     contracts subject to the prevailing wage requirements of such 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2011

Mr. Duncan of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
   Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Jones, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Franks of 
Arizona, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Amash, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Flores, Mrs. Blackburn, 
  Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cole, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. 
 Manzullo, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Ross of Florida, Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Berg) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the provisions of title 40, United States Code, commonly known 
    as the Davis-Bacon Act, to raise the threshold dollar amount of 
     contracts subject to the prevailing wage requirements of such 
                              provisions.

    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 ``Adjusting Davis-Bacon for Inflation 
Act''.

SEC. 2. THRESHOLD OF CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO DAVIS-BACON.

    Section 3142(a) of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code is 
amended by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''.
                                 <all>
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00719

- CV
ENRIQUETA CASTILLO, ET AL.

v. MIZPAH RESIDENTIAL CARE, D/B/A LA FAMILIA ADULT DAY CARE
On Appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2010

- DCL

- 6521

- I

JUDGMENT THE THI RTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for furth er proceedings in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 22, 2014
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00199-CV

Style: Paccar, Inc., Cleveland Mack Sales, Inc. d/b/a Performance Kenworth, and Caterpillar, Inc.

v. Ho Ho Ho Express, Inc.

Date motion filed*: July 26, 2013

Type of motion: Unopposed motion for extension of time to file appellee’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Appellee’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: N/A

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: N/A

Date Requested: August 30, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot) with instructions.

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellee’s brief is due 30 days after the final appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

Although Cleveland Mack Sales, Inc. and Caterpillar, Inc. have filed briefs, Paccar, Inc. has not yet filed

a brief in this appeal. Accordingly, appellee’s brief is not yet due and the motion is dismissed as moot. If 

Paccar, Inc., moves to dismiss its appeal pursuant to settlement, rather than filing a brief, then the parties 

shall promptly inform the court. Appellee’s brief will be due 30 days from the date that Paccar, Inc. either 

files its brief or moves to dismiss its appeal.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: August 2, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                            3615
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4003
<PP&E>                                            4151
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4506
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       1745
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7515
<SALES>                                         10,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,366
<CGS>                                             5477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (658)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date: June 28, 2006 |  By: /s/                Bulin Miao  |   |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |  Bulin Miao                              |   |
|                      |  Finance Manager                    |   |
#### In the Matter of Michael Grigoraki, Appellant, v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 216]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to review a de*833termination of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead dated November 17, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for certain area variances in connection with a proposed subdivision of real property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered April 20, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” *(Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; *see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; *Matter of Josato, Inc. v Wright,*35 AD3d 470, 471 [2006]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the respondent was entitled to consider evidence presented showing that all residences within the 200-foot radius immediately surrounding the subject property were in conformity with the area requirements for that district, that the subdivision will reduce open space and create overcrowding, and that the harm to the petitioner was self-created *(see Matter of Inguant v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven,*304 AD2d 831 [2003]; *Matter of Rod Staten Corp. v Trotta,*278 AD2d 328 [2000]; *Matter of Weisman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Kensington,*260 AD2d 487 [1999]). The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see 41 Kew Gardens Rd. Assoc. v Tyburski,*70 NY2d 325, 333 [1987]; *Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Upper Brookville,*51 NY2d 338, 343 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of Compensation Terms for James W. Cruckshank

 

In connection with James W. Cruckshank’s appointment as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, TigerLogic Corporation agreed to compensate Mr. Cruckshank for his consulting services at a rate of $1,400 per day, and he is not eligible for any bonuses or equity incentives.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                                BROOKE GROUP LTD.
                       100 S.E. SECOND STREET, 32ND FLOOR
                              MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131

                                                          January 1, 1998

Mr. Howard M. Lorber
100 S.E. Second Street, 32nd Floor
Miami, Florida  33131


Dear Mr. Lorber:

         This letter sets forth the first amendment to the Amended and Restated
Consulting Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of January 1, 1996, between
Brooke Group Ltd. and you.

         1.   The Agreement is amended by deleting the date "December 31, 1996"
in Section 1 thereof and replacing it with the date "December 31, 1999".

         2.   The Agreement is amended by inserting the following at the end of
Section 4 thereof:

                           In addition to the foregoing, commencing January 1,
                  1998, BGL shall pay Consultant an additional bonus on or prior
                  to April 1st in each year during the term of this Agreement.
                  The additional bonus shall be in an amount equal to the
                  amount, if any, necessary to reimburse Consultant, on an
                  after-tax basis, for all applicable federal, state and self
                  employment taxes actually incurred by Consultant as a result
                  of the grant or vesting of any award of Common Stock or
                  options to acquire Common Stock during the prior calendar
                  year.

         3.   This letter agreement constitutes an amendment to and a
modification of the Agreement and shall for all purposes be considered a part of
the Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement is confirmed and ratified
in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect.


<PAGE>   2
Mr. Howard M. Lorber
January 1, 1998
Page 2


         Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning two
copies of this letter agreement in the space provided below and returning one of
such copies to us.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             BROOKE GROUP LTD.

                                             By: /s/ Bennett S. LeBow
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Bennett S. LeBow
                                                 Chairman, President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:




By: /s/ Howard M. Lorber
    -------------------------------
    Howard M. Lorber
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

               We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Innkeepers USA Trust on Form S-3 (File No.33-97932, 333-20309, 333-31923, 333-37505, 333-53919, 333-53955, 333-58811, 333-70873, 333-93465, 333-43074 and 333-43076), of our reports (i) dated February 25, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Innkeepers USA Trust; (ii)dated February 25, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule of Innkeepers USA Trust; and (iii) dated February 25, 2003 relating to the combined financial statements of Innkeepers Hospitality, which appear in this Annual Report on Form10-K.  We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Selected Financial Data.”

| PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERSLLP |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| Dallas, Texas              |   |
| March 13 , 2003            |   |
<PAGE>

                         Cobitz, Vandenberg & Fennessy

                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                      9944 SOUTH ROBERTS ROAD - SUITE 202
                          PALOS HILLS, ILLINOIS 60465

                      (708) 430-4106 - Fax (708) 430-4499



                                  EXHIBIT 24
                                  ----------


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of West Town Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated May 2, 2000, included in
the 2000 Annual Report to Stockholders of West Town Bancorp, Inc.


                              /s/ Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy
                              Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy


June 7, 2000
Palos Hills, Illinois