alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50836 Summary Calendar
**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Omero Rojas**

**- Leal,**  Defendant

— Appellant **,**
**consolidated with**

**_____________ No. 21** 

**- 50843** 

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Belarmino Lorenzo**

**- Lopez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 23, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2022No. 21

- 50836 c/w No. 21

- 50843

2 Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 281

- 1 USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 520

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Omero Rojas

- Leal appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal
re entry into the United States after having been ordered removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)( 2 ), along with the revocation of the term s of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. H e argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he does n ot address the validity of the revocation of his term s of supervised release or the sentence s imposed upon revocation, he has abandoned any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Rojas

- Leal has filed an u nopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the issue is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998) , and merely seeks to preserve this claim for further revi ew. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019)

. B ecause summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis ,

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2022No. 21

- 50836 c/w No. 21

- 50843

3 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969 ), Rojas

- Leal’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the judgment s of the district court are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-139-2017]


Approval of Subzone Status; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation; 
Dallas, Texas

    On September 12, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Metroplex 
International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, 
requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of 
FTZ 168, on behalf of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, in Dallas, 
Texas.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (82 FR 43327, September 15, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner 
reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for 
approval.
    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive 
Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 
168E was approved on November 6, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to 
FTZ 168's 1,909-acre activation limit.

    Dated: November 8, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24645 Filed 11-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel Ramon VARGAS, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-2536.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 13, 2008.

Mark B. Laroche, by appointment of the court, was on brief for appellant.

Robert Clark Corrente, United States Attorney, with whom Donald C. Lockhart and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on brief, for appel-lee.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LYNCH, Circuit Judge and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Manuel Ramon Vargas pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry following a prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment. Vargas appeals, contending that the underlying deportation order failed to comport with due process.

The elements of illegal reentry are that the defendant “(1) is an alien, (2) was previously deported, and (3) thereafter entered, or attempted to enter, the United States without permission.” *United States v. Contreras Palacios,*492 F.3d 39, 42 (1st Cir.2007). An alien may negate the second element via collateral attack of the underlying deportation order by satisfying certain criteria enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Here, Vargas attempted to obtain relief pursuant to § 1326(d) by filing a motion to dismiss before the district court. *See United States v. Vargas,*479 F.Supp.2d 252 (D.R.I.2007) (rejecting Vargas’s motion to dismiss). Now, on appeal, Vargas suggests that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss.

At the plea hearing, Vargas initially expressed a desire to continue to pursue on appeal his collateral attack against the pri- or deportation order. The district court, however, plainly instructed Vargas that, by *12pleading guilty, he would waive his right to appeal his conviction for the crime of illegal reentry. Because Vargas pleaded guilty following the district court’s clear and unequivocal admonition, his challenge is foreclosed by *Tollett v. Henderson,*411 U.S. 258, 98 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Under the *'Tollett*doctrine, subject to narrowly construed exceptions, “a defendant who pleads guilty unconditionally waives all ‘independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.’ ” *United States v. Gaffney,*469 F.3d 211, 214 (1st Cir.2006) (quoting *Tollett,*411 U.S. at 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602). Vargas does not argue that his plea was involuntary, *see United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado,*402 F.3d 294, 298 (1st Cir.2005), or that the court lacked jurisdiction, *see United States v. Cordero,*42 F.3d 697, 698-99 (1st Cir.1994). Consequently, Vargas may not now renew his pre-plea collateral attack against the deportation order upon which the instant conviction is predicated. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*85 Fed.Appx. 881, 882 (4th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (unpublished); *United States v. Ortega-Guzman,*76 Fed.Appx. 846, 847-48 (10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished); *United States v. Lemus-Barragan,*5 Fed.Appx. 737, 737-38 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (unpublished).

*Affirmed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 22, 2020

b1214

Order 

Clerk

December 22, 2020

161155

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161155

COA: 351720

Washtenaw CC: 97-008763-FC

ISIAH SIMPSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2020 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 51971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24466]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 51971]]


                Notice of November 6, 2017

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass 
                Destruction

                On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, the 
                President declared a national emergency with respect to 
                the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
                security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
                States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, 
                biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass 
                destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. 
                On July 28, 1998, by Executive Order 13094, the 
                President amended Executive Order 12938 to respond more 
                effectively to the worldwide threat of proliferation 
                activities related to weapons of mass destruction. On 
                June 28, 2005, by Executive Order 13382, the President, 
                among other things, further amended Executive Order 
                12938 to improve our ability to combat proliferation 
                activities related to weapons of mass destruction. The 
                proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
                means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual 
                and extraordinary threat to the national security, 
                foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For 
                this reason, the national emergency declared in 
                Executive Order 12938 with respect to the proliferation 
                of weapons of mass destruction and the means of 
                delivering such weapons must continue beyond November 
                14, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) 
                of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I 
                am continuing for 1 year the national emergency 
                declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended by 
                Executive Orders 13094 and 13382.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    November 6, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-24466
Filed 11-7-17; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F8-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – November 17, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7VRwYq0tyF\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-november-17-2017\/\">Applicants – November 17, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-november-17-2017\/embed\/#?secret=7VRwYq0tyF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – November 17, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7VRwYq0tyF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF SPINNAKER EXPLORATION COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Spinnaker Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Snell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ ROBERT M. SNELL
|Name:               |  | Robert M. Snell        
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:               |  | August 8, 2005         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spinnaker Exploration Company and will be retained by Spinnaker Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   9
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  information  extracted  from the Bay National
Corporation  September  30, 2000  financial  statements  and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0001089787
<NAME>    Bay National Corporation

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                    4,211,728
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    7,121,170
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         10,993,703
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>               2,268,159
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    2,268,159
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      2,268,159
<LOANS>                                   1,521,622
<ALLOWANCE>                                  23,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           19,972,782
<DEPOSITS>                                8,926,247
<SHORT-TERM>                                      0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         258,515
<LONG-TERM>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     12,420
<OTHER-SE>                               10,775,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           19,972,782
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              10,613
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           129,488
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            325,821
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            465,922
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           66,937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           66,937
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       398,985
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                23,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           1,462,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,083,481)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               (1,083,481)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,083,481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (1.45)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 0.00
<LOANS-NON>                                       0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     0
<RECOVERIES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0


</TABLE>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-95,393-01

EX P ARTE MELVIN MITCHELL, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1367435-A IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . M C C L U R E , J., did not participate.

O P I N I O N Applicant pleaded g

uilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and was sentenced to four y

ears’ imprisonment. Applicant did not file a direct appeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant has discharg ed this sentence. The habeas court finds credible Applicant’s assertion that he continues to suffer consequences arising from this conviction, including its neg ative effects on his ability to find and job and a place to live and its availability to enhance the penalty in a subsequent case. Therefore, Applicant is “confined” for purposes of Article 11.07. Applicant claims that he was denied due process throug h the use of material false2

evidence, and that his g

uilty plea was involuntary . These claims relate to the discovery of misconduct by

former Houston Police Officer Gerald Goines, who was the primary officer involved in the alleg ed offense. B a sed on the record, the habeas court finds that Applicant was denied due process by

the use of material false evidence ag ainst him, and that Applicant’s g uilty plea was involuntary

. Ex parte Mathews, 638 S.W .3d 685 (Tex . Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Coty , 418 S.W .3d 597 (Tex . Crim. App. 2014). The habeas court recommends g ranting relief on false evidence and involuntary plea g rounds. W e ag ree. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte Chabot , 300 S.W .3d 768, 772 (Tex . Crim. App. 2009). The judg ment in cause number 136743501010 in the 339th District Court of Harris County is set aside. Applicant shall answer the charg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary

orders within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Tex as Department of Criminal J ustice–Correctional I

nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: April 17, 2024 Do not publish
#### Carlos Hernandez CARDENAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74118.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*769Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Carlos Hernandez Cardenas, Fontana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the minor petitioner has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that the minor petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part as to the minor petitioner. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

We have reviewed the response to the order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioners Carlos Hernandez Cardenas and Maria Guadalupe Ocegueda have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction in part as to petitioners Carlos Hernandez Cardenas and Maria Guadalupe Ocegueda. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.