alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 29, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1516 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20216 -CR- CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RICAR DO NATH ANILIAN JOHNSON-CUERVO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 29, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ri card o N athanil ian Jo hnso n- Cu er vo a ppe al s hi s c onc ur

re nt s en te nc es f

or im portatio n of

m or phi ne , 21 U . S. C. §§ 9 52( a) and 9 60( b) (3 ), and p oss es sio n w ith int en t t o di str ibu te m or

phi ne , 21 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ) an d ( b) (1 )( C) , c ont en din g th e use of an unproven andunadm itted drug qu antity to im pose sentences und er a m an da tor y G uid el ine s sc he m e vio late d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, a s se t f orth i n United States v. B ooker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5). Beca use John son-Cuervo preserved a B lak el y/ Booker obj ec tio n inthe di st ric t co ur t, we re vi ew th e ch al le ng e to hi s s en te nc e d e n ov o. United States v. P az , 40 5 F .3d94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Booker e rr or m ust be dis re gard ed

if it was ha rm le ss . Id

. T o f ind harm le ss e rr or , w e m

ust de te rm ine the e rr or

did not af fe ct the de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. Ac onst itutio na l e rr or , suc h a s Booker er ro r, doe s no t a ff

ec t su bst an tia l r igh ts, if

it is harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble do ub t. Id . T his standard

is m et onl y w he re it is cl ear be y ond a re as ona ble doubt the e rr or did not c ontri but e to the se nte nc e obt ai ne d. T he gov er nm en t ha s th e bu rd en of s ho win g t he erro r di d n otaffec t t he de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id . T he G ove rn m en t ha s no t atte m pte d to c ar

ry it s burd enof

sho w ing the e rr or w as harm le ss. I nst ea d, the G ove rn m en t c onc ed es e rr or and j oin s Jo hnso n- Cu er

vo3

in r eque sti ng a

r em an d f or r es en te nc ing . A cc or din gly , w e va cate Joh nson Cu er vo’ s se nte nc es and r em an d f or r es en te nc ing . VACATED AND REMANDED.
# C_2011252EN.01005802.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/58

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-97/10) (1)

1

2011/C 252/131

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p 41.

1

---
18 17
|
\l
meee sos Sates
|
|
|
149 1) 20
' |
|
' |
i |
30 29
|
|
|
an) a Loo
|
|
|
|
31 32

g Gas \ i aS > Monument
% | \
!
q 06 05 | 04
| |
a |
| |
ALESIS, 7 | |
2 a eh pea Ce ee
_ | |
\
7 q 08 | 09
j
: |
Zi |
SS a LELEELEE Esty

641

21

28

33

SS
89104 poomudly

SE

oe

juewnuoyy

638B

636E

637

636A1

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
March 2007

1 i}

TRAVEL ROUTE INVENTORY

Township 11 South
Range 6 East

Gila and Salt River Principal Meridian, Arizona

National Monument Boundary

Public Lands Administered by the
|__|} Bureau of Land Management

State Trust Lands

Military Reservation

= _ Monument Travel Route Inventory

Universal Transverse Mercator
Zone 12, Units Meters

Clark 1866 Spheriod

NAD27 Datum

A

1 Miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
for the use of this map for purposes not intended by the BLM, or
to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information
shown. Spatial information may not meet National map Accuracy
Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

Tucson Field Office

Arizona

S
#### Pincers *vs.*Robertson and others.

1. An answer, not verified as tbe practice of the court requires, will be suppressed.

2. When the verification of an answer is in the form of an affidavit, the name of the deponent must be subscribed at the foot of the affidavit; when, in the form of a certificate of the officer who administered the oath, the name of the deponent should be subscribed to the answer.

On motion to suppress answer.

*Mr. O. Parker,*for the motion.

*Mr. N. Perry, Jun.,*contra.

The Chancellor.

A motion is made to suppress the answer of the defendants, on the ground that it is not verified as the practice of the court requires. That which purports to be an affidavit to it is not signed by the defendants, nor by either of them, though the jurat states that it was both sworn and subscribed. The *349jurat itself is not signed. A signature, purporting to be that of a justice of the peace, appears at the foot of the affidavit, in the place where the affiants should have signed. The answer is signed by solicitor and counsel, but not by the defendants, or either of them. It bears evidence that it was signed by them, and their signatures erased before it was filed. The practice of this court requires, that where the verification of an answer is in the form of an affidavit, the name of the deponent be subscribed at the foot of the affidavit; and where the verification is in the form of a certificate of the officer who administered the oath, the name of the deponent should be subscribed to the answer. The object is to facilitate identification of the affiant in case of prosecution for perjury. *Hathaway v. Scott, 11 Paige 173,*176; *Anderson*v. *Stather,*9 *Jar.*1085; *Daniell’s Ch. Pr. (4th ed.,)*746. The answer will be taken from the files.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW160470]

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW160470, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement from O'Brien Energy Resources Corporation for competitive 
oil and gas lease WYW160470 for land in Niobrara County, Wyoming. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16 \2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW160470 
effective November 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of 
the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The 
BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the 
lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2011-5491 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
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 results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ JOHN G. DUFFYJohn G. DuffyChief Executive Officer 
 *
    
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2011055EN.01002301.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/23

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-38/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Reimbursement of recoverable expenses - Availability of a parallel remedy - Procedural defects - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 55/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Currall, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2009 in Case F-70/07 Marcuccio v Commission seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
# C_2011030EN.01002501.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/25

---

Action brought on 17 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-542/10)

()

2011/C 30/41

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Ł. Habiak and S. La Pergola, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 94(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 94(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/64 expired on 1 November 2009.

---

(1)  OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|    |  |                                                                   |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|    |  |                                                                   |  | 
|By: |  | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|    |  | Date: May 16, 2005                                                |  | 

---



QuickLinks
§ 145.92 Participation. Participating flocks of meat-type waterfowl and the eggs and baby poultry produced from them shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart I. ( a ) Started poultry shall lose their identity under Plan terminology when not maintained by Plan participants under the conditions prescribed in § 145.5(a).
( b ) Hatching eggs produced by primary and multiplier breeding flocks should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
( c ) Any nutritive material provided to baby poultry must be free of the avian pathogens that are officially represented in the Plan disease classifications listed in § 145.10.
[76 FR 15794, Mar. 22, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 38764, July 9, 2014; 81 FR 53250, Aug. 12, 2016]
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Streamlines Application Process for Rural Energy for America Program and Business & 

Industry Program Loan Guarantees 

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced that USDA has simplified the application process for lenders applying for guarantees through two 

key businesses programs. Lenders can now use the same loan guarantee application form for the Business and 

Industry (B&I) loan guarantee program and the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), regardless of the 

loan amount. 

The B&I and REAP programs support lenders who provide access to capital for rural businesses and 

agricultural producers. 

This change became effective July 2. USDA made it to reduce the burden on these lenders, facilitating the 

path to prosperity for America’s rural businesses and agricultural producers. It comes on the heels of last 

month’s Rural Development National Lender Forum, which brought together lenders and other stakeholders to 

strengthen public-private partnerships and expand access to capital in rural communities. 

For more information on the simplified application process and other changes, see page 30831 of the July 2 

Federal Register. 

#
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund IV, L.P., Series 1 (the “Partnership”) for the years ended March 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section1350, as adopted pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: December 10, 2010
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1013

ANGEL JAVIER MEJIA

- AGUILAR
,
Petitioner
,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND
, Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 30, 2022 Decided: January 4, 2023

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher , Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brandon T. Callahan, Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1013 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM:
Angel Javier Mejia

- Aguilar, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review

of a n order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) den ial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss in part and de ny
in part the petition for review.
Mejia

- Aguilar , who has been represented by counsel throughout his removal
proceedings, contends that the IJ failed in his duty to develop the record at the hearing
regarding a potential claim that counsel declined to pur sue . In support, he cit es our recent

decision in Quintero v. Garland , 998 F.3d 612 , 627

- 28 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that IJs
have a legal duty to fully develop the record in all cases that come before them and that

such duty “becomes particularly importan t in cases involving uncounseled noncitizens.” ).
Mejia

- Aguilar failed to raise this claim before the Board, either on its own or supported by

Quintero , which was decided before the instant Board decision issued . We therefore
dismiss the petition for revi ew in part for lack of jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ; see

Cedillos

- Cedillos v. Barr , 962 F.3d 817, 823 n.3 (4th Cir. 2020); Cabrera v. Barr , 930 F.3d
627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019 ).
Next, Mejia

- Aguilar contends that the agency erred in finding that he failed to meet

his burden of proof to qualify for protection under the CAT. Upon review, we deny the
petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Mejia

- Aguila r ( B.I.A.

Dec. 9, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are USCA4 Appeal: 22-1013 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART

, DEN IED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 22-1013 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/04/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
### **CHAPTER 26—HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS**

Sec.
1211.
Prohibition against transportation of refrigerators without safety devices.
1212.
Violations; misdemeanor; penalties.
1213.
Publication of safety standards in Federal Register.
1214.
"Interstate commerce" defined.
#### § 2.4 Non-interference with APHIS officials.

A licensee or applicant for an initial license shall not interfere with, threaten, abuse (including verbally abuse), or harass any APHIS official in the course of carrying out his or her duties.
§ 56.10 Initial State response and containment plan. ( a ) In order for poultry owners within a State to be eligible for indemnity and/or compensation for 100 percent of eligible costs under § 56.3(b), the State in which the poultry participate in the Plan must have in place an initial State response and containment plan that has been approved by APHIS. The initial State response and containment plan must be developed by the Official State Agency. In States where the Official State Agency is different than the Cooperating State Agency, the Cooperating State Agency must also participate in the development of the plan. The plan must be administered by the Cooperating State Agency of the relevant State. This plan must include: ( 1 ) Provisions for a standing emergency disease management committee, regular meetings, and exercises, including coordination with any tribal governments that may be affected;
( 2 ) A minimum biosecurity plan followed by all poultry producers;
( 3 ) Provisions for adequate diagnostic resources;
( 4 ) Detailed, specific procedures for initial handling and investigation of suspected cases of H5/H7 LPAI;
( 5 ) Detailed, specific procedures for reporting test results to APHIS. These procedures must be developed after appropriate consultation with poultry producers in the State and must provide for the reporting only of confirmed cases of H5/H7 LPAI in accordance with § 146.13 of this chapter;
( 6 ) Detailed, strict quarantine measures for presumptive and confirmed index cases;
( 7 ) Provisions for developing flock plans for infected and exposed flocks;
( 8 ) Detailed plans for disposal of infected flocks, including preexisting agreements with regulatory agencies and detailed plans for carcass disposal, disposal sites, and resources for conducting disposal, and detailed plans for disposal of materials that come into contact with poultry infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI;
( 9 ) Detailed plans for cleaning and disinfection of premises, repopulation, and monitoring after repopulation;
( 10 ) Provisions for appropriate control/monitoring zones, contact surveys, and movement restrictions;
( 11 ) Provisions for monitoring activities in control zones;
( 12 ) If vaccination is considered as an option, a written plan for use in place with proper controls and provisions for APHIS approval of any use of vaccine;
( 13 ) Plans for H5/H7 LPAI-negative flocks that provide for quarantine, testing, and controlled marketing; and
( 14 ) Public awareness and education programs regarding avian influenza.
( b ) If a State is designated a U.S. Avian Influenza Monitored State, Layers under § 146.24(a) of this chapter or a U.S. Avian Influenza Monitored State, Turkeys under § 146.44(a) of this chapter, it will lose that status during any outbreak of H5/H7 LPAI and for 90 days after the destruction and disposal of all infected or exposed birds and cleaning and disinfection of all affected premises are completed.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0474) [71 FR 56323, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 10658, Mar. 9, 2010; 85 FR 62564, Oct. 5, 2020]