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

No. 15

- 40500 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ENRIQUE ANTONIO MEJIA, also known as Enrique Antonio Mejia Soto, also known as Enrique Mejia,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 858

- 1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Enrique Antonio Mejia raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied , 2015 WL 3867557 (Nov. 30, 2015) (No.
14

- 10355). In Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 December 1 5 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40500 Document: 00513307882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015No. 15

- 40500

2 trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. Mejia also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez

- Escareno , 700 F.3d 751, 753

- 54 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that the sentence enhancement provided for in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) applies to a conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense. The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40500 Document: 00513307882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), UlrichGottschling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 5, 2010 |                     |                    |
|----------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       | By:                      | /s/  Ulrich Gottschling |
|                       | Ulrich  Gottschling      |
|                       | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Motion Granted; Order filed August 23, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00709-CV

GLEN GRAVES, Appellant

V.

JERRY L. STARKEY, TBDL, L.P., AND PBW DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the 405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-CV-0620

O R D E R

On July 6, 2012, Jerry L. Starkey, TBDL, L.P., and PBW Development 

Corporation filed a notice of appeal from the amended final judgment signed April 11, 

2012, and the appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14-12-00633-

CV. On August 2, 2012, Glen Graves filed a notice of cross-appeal from the trial court's 

order signed July 13, 2012, granting a motion to modify filed by Jerry L. Starkey, TBDL, 

L.P., and PBW Development Corporation, which was assigned to this court under our 

appellate number 14-12-00709-CV. 
2

On August 13, 2012, Glen Graves filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the 

appeals. The motion is granted and the court consolidates the two above-referenced 

causes for all purposes. The issues, records, and documents filed in cause number 14-12-

00709-CV are consolidated into cause number 14-12-00633-CV. The consolidated 

appeal shall proceed under appeal number 14-12-00633-CV. Appellate deadlines will 

run from the date that the record in appeal number 14-12-00709–CV is complete. The 

parties should confer on an appropriate briefing schedule.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 24, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00220

- CV

Nandita Berry, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Texas Democratic Party and Gilberto Hinojosa in his Of ficial Capacity as Chair of

The Texas Democratic Party, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN

REVERSED AND DISMISSED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on March 18, 2014.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was re versible

error in the court’s interlocutory order . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s

interlocutory order and renders judgment dismissing the claims of the Texa s Democratic Party

and Gilberto Hinojosa in his Official Cap acity as Chair of The Texas Democratic Party for want

of subject

- matter jurisdiction

. The appellee s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in

this Court and the court below.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10160]

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Sunken Cities: Egypt's Lost Worlds,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri, from on or about March 25, 2018, until on or about September 9, 2018, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about October 28, 2018, until on or about April 14, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

 Alyson Grunder,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-22150 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000077909-MAY-201308:08 AM
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Elton Alderman, Chief Executive Officer of Prolong International Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and





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





Dated: August 13, 2002





/s/    Elton Alderman


Elton Alderman


Chief Executive
Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6793
GEORGE JAMES HUBBARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus P. L. HUFFMAN; DR. PALAVARAPU; L. STILTNER; E. E. WHITE, Lieutenant; R. E. LILLY, Officer; DENNIS M. SPRAGUE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-1090-R) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George James Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hubbard v. Huffman , No. CA-94-1090-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v William Staib, Defendant, and Kayla L. et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 849]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 5, 2013, which granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment declaring, among other things, that it had no duty to defend or indemnify *626defendant William Staib in the underlying personal injury action, and so declared, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Staib sought coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued by plaintiff for injuries sustained when an unrestrained and unattended dog sitting in Staib’s parked car bit Staib’s niece, the infant defendant, as she walked by the vehicle. The policy provides that plaintiff “will pay for all damages an insured person is legally obligated to pay . . . because of bodily injury or property damage . . . from claims for accidents arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, loading or unloading of an insured auto.” The infant defendant’s injuries did not arise out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the automobile. Indeed, the vehicle itself did not produce the injury, nor did the accident arise out of the inherent nature of the vehicle *(see Eagle Ins. Co. v Butts,*269 AD2d 558, 558-559 [2d Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 768 [2000]). Rather, the vehicle was merely the situs of the accident, which is not sufficient to trigger coverage under the plain terms of the subject policy provision *(see Walden v Smith,*427 SW3d 269, 282 [Mo Ct App 2014]; *Maine Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v American Intern. Underwriters Ins. Co.,*677 A2d 1073, 1075 [Me 1996]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
IH87-W

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-13-00698-CR

Eber Martinez v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM

OFFENSE: 22.021 (Agg Sex Assault)

COUNTY: Fort Bend

TRIAL COURT: 268th District Court

DATE: 10/07/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 12-DCR-060497

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Eber Martinez v. The State of Texas

PRO S£ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: 0lllj liikISM?

JUDGE: /^/£**M~

CCA#: W7«/¥

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
**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 Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.(“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.         By: /s/ Jack B. Binion          Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer    May 10, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Candido Cruz, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 135]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered September 25, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of offering a false instrument in the first degree and petit larceny.

In this criminal prosecution for offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and petit larceny, defendant contends that his conviction, which stems from the submission of a written instrument to the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services and the receipt of public assistance benefits to which defendant and his spouse, a codefendant, were not entitled, is against the weight of the evidence. We cannot agree. To be sure, defendant presented evidence that directly conflicted with the testimony of the various representatives of the Department of Social Services. This, however, simply presented credibility determinations for resolution by the jury, and we traditionally have accorded deference to the fact finders’ opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor. Bearing that fact in mind, and weighing the relevant probative force of the conflicting testimony and the relevant strength of the varying inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we do not find that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, *People v Kussius,*238 AD2d 731, 732, *lv denied*90 NY2d 941).

Insofar as defendant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel for the failure of trial counsel to pursue certain strategies, including the availability of an alleged 30-day grace period during which a public assistance recipient may be employed without affecting his or her aid and exploring the effect of his or her spouse’s disability upon the household’s eligibility for assistance, we find his arguments to be lacking in merit. Specifically, it is of note that defendant already was employed in another job during the relevant time period, and appellate counsel fails to enlighten us as to how such employment would have affected defendant’s ability to avail himself of the 30-day grace period. Similarly, the effect of the codefendant’s alleged disability is wholly unexplained. Accordingly, there is no proof that defendant suffered actual prejudice as the result of these claimed deficiencies and, absent such, we can make no finding of ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Frascatore,*200 AD2d 860, 861). Finally, we find no error in County Court’s supplemental charge to the jury.

*964Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.7







CONSENT OF M3 ENGINEERING &TECHNOLOGY CORP.





We refer to our report auditing the resources at the Dolores Gold-Silver Project Chihuahua, Mexico, dated June 8, 2005, (the Report).



We hereby consent to the filing, use and incorporation by reference of, the Report and the references to our name in the Minefinders Corporation Ltd. Annual Report of Form 40-F/A Amendment No.1 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





Sincerely,



M3 Engineering & Technology Corp.



Conrad Huss                        .

Conrad Huss







Tucson, Arizona

April 12, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6680

KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Royal Blackness, a/k/a Bar None, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

JON E. OZMINT; ROBERT E. WARD; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR.; JOHN 

LUNDEN; DAVID TATARSKI; BERNARD MCKIE; VAUGHN JACKSON; GARY 

LANE; CHARLES AMAKER; J. PECK; GLENN ALEWINE; WILLIAM 

LITRELL; NED COOPER; BRENT A. MILLS; LARRY KONG, of American 

Amenities, Incorporated in their official and individual 

capacity; AMERICAN AMENITIES INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants – Appellees, 

 and 

ESTHER QUATTLEBAUM; DENNIS DUNLAP; J. C. BROWN; ROBERT 

ESPISITO; H. BOATMAN; VERONICA SMITH; DENISE CANNARELLA; 

BRETT, R.N.; AEDEC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; MCMASTER; 

JOHN DOE, 

 Defendants. 

No. 09-7540

KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Royal Blackness, a/k/a Bar None, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 
JON OZMINT; ROBERT E. WARD; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR.; JOHN 

LUNDEN; DAVID TATARSKI; BERNARD MCKIE; VAUGHN JACKSON; GARY 

LANE; CHARLES AMAKER; J. PECK; GLENN ALEWINE; WILLIAM 

LITRELL; NED COOPER; H. BOATMAN; LARRY KONG, of American 

Amenities, Incorporated, in their official and individual 

capacity; AMERICAN AMENITIES, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants – Appellees, 

 and 

AEDEC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; JOHN DOE; DENNIS DUNLAP; 

J. C. BROWN; ROBERT ESPISITO; DENISE CANNARELLA; BRETT, 

R.N., BRENT A. MILLS; HENRY MCMASTER, 

 Defendants. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (9:07-cv-03644-PMD) 

Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: December 14, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, 

Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, 

South Carolina; Vinton D. Lide, Michael Stephen Pauley, LIDE & 

PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Christopher R. Antley, 

DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Smith, a/k/a Bar 

None Royal Blackness, appeals the district court’s orders 

accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing two Defendants because the Defendants were not state 

actors and granting summary judgment to the remaining Defendants 

and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Smith v. Ozmint, No. 9:07-cv-03644-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2009; 

July 23, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.4

 


	

    	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE   STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2014

LAST REVIEWED: DECEMBER 11, 2014
    




 

The Board believes that significant stock ownership by the Company’s senior officers will further align their interests with those of the Company’s stockholders and will promote our long-term business objectives.  Therefore, the Board has adopted common stock ownership guidelines requiring ownership of shares of common stock having a value equal to five times base salary in the case of our CEO and three times base salary in the case of our other officers who are direct reports to the CEO.

 

Officers will be expected to meet the applicable ownership threshold within five years of the later of December 11, 2014 or the date of their appointment to the applicable position.

 

The level of compliance with these guidelines will be determined on an annual basis by the Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “CNG Committee”) and reported to the Board.  For purposes of such determination, stock ownership will be determined from the totals on Table 1 of an SEC Form 4 other than unvested time-based restricted stock awards, and which excludes outstanding stock options and stock appreciation rights (whether or not vested).  To calculate the value of an officer’s shares of common stock, this total shall be multiplied by the highest share price in the preceding 52 week period.

 

These guidelines may be waived at the discretion of the CNG Committee with respect to any particular officer or based on bona fide personal financial need or hardship, other special circumstances or if compliance would prevent an officer from complying with law, regulation or a court order, as in the case of a divorce settlement.

 

The CNG Committee shall review these Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines no less than annually.

 

1
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________

CRAIG RAGLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent.

__________________________

2013-3054

__________________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. PH0752120027-I-1.

__________________________

ON MOTION

__________________________

O R D E R

Craig Ragland moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied. The docketing fee must be paid 

within 14 days from the filing of this order.

Case: 13-3054 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2013
CRAIG RAGLAND v. ARMY 2

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s24

Case: 13-3054 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 02/13/2013