alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.608 Submission of certificate of eligibility for certain apparel goods of Nicaragua.

An importer who claims preferential tariff treatment on a non-originating apparel good of Nicaragua specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 10.607 of this subpart must submit a certificate of eligibility issued by an authorized official of the Government of Nicaragua, demonstrating that the good is eligible for entry under the applicable TPL. The certificate of eligibility must be in writing or must be transmitted electronically pursuant to any electronic means authorized by CBP for that purpose.

[CBP Dec. 08-22, 73 FR 33678, June 13, 2008, as amended by CBP Dec. 10-26, 75 FR 50700, Aug. 17, 2010]
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0326n.06

No. 13-2606

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DEIDRA LUCAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Deidra Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed for 

violating the terms of her supervised release.

On February 11, 2011, Lucas pleaded guilty to a charge of embezzlement. She was 

sentenced to one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which she violated 

by committing new violations of state law. In September 2012, Ohio law enforcement stopped 

Lucas for a traffic offense and discovered that her passenger was carrying quantities of both 

Xanax and heroin. Lucas pleaded guilty in an Ohio state court to two charges of permitting drug 

use, and served ninety days of imprisonment. 

The sentencing guideline range in this case was three to nine months. After hearing 

argument from both parties, the district court imposed a sentence of four months of 

imprisonment. Lucas argues that her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable 

because the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors.
No. 13-2606

United States v. Lucas

- 2 -

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness; a sentence within the guideline range 

is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Robinson, 503 F.3d 522, 528

(6th Cir. 2007). A sentence may be found to be procedurally and substantively unreasonable 

where it appears that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors. United 

States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2008). Here, Lucas argues that the district 

court could have continued her supervised release, or imposed a sentence of home confinement 

or a shorter sentence, but instead imposed a sentence within the guideline range without 

consideration of the other sentencing factors. The sentencing hearing transcript, however, shows 

that the district court explicitly addressed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s factors, including the serious 

nature of the offense, Lucas’s underlying criminal history, and the need to promote respect for 

the law, provide just punishment, provide deterrence, and protect the public. Therefore, the 

record does not support the argument that the district court failed to consider the relevant 

sentencing factors. A defendant’s desire for a more lenient sentence is insufficient to disturb the 

district court’s judgment. United States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
### §7445. Offices

The principal office of the Tax Court shall be in the District of Columbia, but the Tax Court or any of its divisions may sit at any place within the United States.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 880.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.301 Scope and applicability.

The provisions of §§ 10.302 through 10.311 of this part relate to the procedures for obtaining duty preferences on imported goods under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (the Agreement) entered into on January 2, 1988, and the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 1851). The United States and Canada agreed to suspend operation of the Agreement with effect from January 1, 1994, to coincide with the entry into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (see part 181 of this chapter) and, accordingly, the provisions of §§ 10.302 through 10.311 of this part apply only to goods imported from Canada that were entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during the period January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1993. In situations involving goods subject to bilateral restrictions or prohibitions, or country of origin marking, other criteria for determining origin may be applicable pursuant to Article 407 of the Agreement.

[T.D. 96-35, 61 FR 19835, May 3, 1996]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RICHARD MANUEL ALVARADO, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D16-3533

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 20, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Alan S. Apte, Judge.

Frank J. Bankowitz, of Law Office of Frank 

J. Bankowitz, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See Holden v. State, 90 So. 3d 902, 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("[W]e 

note that a defendant who has pled no contest may not preserve as an issue the trial 

court's failure to suppress a confession, absent a stipulation by the State that the issue is 

dispositive of the case.") (citing Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla. 1979))).

PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
<page>                                    EXHIBIT 32.02

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 Dean Witter World
Currency Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Perry,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Kevin Perry

Name:	   Kevin Perry
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:	November 15, 2004
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-174 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, September 22, 1998)

COMMISSION GRANTS GROUP MORE TIME TO FILE

CONTENTIONS IN CALVERT CLIFFS LICENSE RENEWAL CASE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted the National Whistleblower

Center (NWC) until September 30 to file proposed contentions to be litigated in a

hearing on the renewal of the operating licenses for both units of the Calvert Cliffs

nuclear plant at Lusby, Md.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BG&E) applied to the NRC in April for a 20-year

extension of the Calvert Cliffs operating licenses, which now expire in 2014 and 2016

respectively. NWC petitioned for a hearing in August, and its request was referred to

an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. That board gave NWC a deadline of

September 11 for filing issues to be litigated, an action which NWC appealed to the

Commission. NWC had sought an extension of time until November.

In an order issued Thursday (September 17), the Commission gave NWC until

the end of September to file its contentions. The Commission specified that any

contentions brought by NWC must meet NRC acceptability standards, and further

stated that the Licensing Board “should be prepared to terminate the adjudication

promptly should NWC submit no admissible contentions.”

The Commission said its action in giving NWC more time suggests no

dissatisfaction with the Licensing Board’s overall handling of the case. A recent

Commission order directed an expedited handling of any hearing in the Calvert Cliffs

case and set a goal of resolving all issues within 30 months.

###

EDITORS: The Commission order will be posted on the NRC Internet web page.
453 P.2d 219

#### John E. DRUM, Petitioner, v. The Honorable John B. McMANUS, Jr., District Judge in and for the County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District, Respondent.

No. 8813.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

March 21, 1969.

NOBLE, Chief Justice and MOISE, COMPTON and CARMODY, Justices, concurring.

TACKETT, Justice, being absent and not participating.

Ordered that the petition for alternative writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied.
exhibit 32







FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS



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 of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Cox, President/CEO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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: April 12, 2005





/s/ Robert Cox

Robert Cox

President/CEO







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1





---







FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS



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 of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Treasurer/CFO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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: April 12, 2005





/s/ Keith Berman

Keith Berman

Treasurer/CFO







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

2
### §2322. United States as party

All actions specified in section 2321 of this title shall be brought by or against the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 969.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §48 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §211, 36 Stat. 1150; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219).

Word "actions" was substituted for "cases and proceedings", in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A provision authorizing intervention by the United States was omitted. The United States, under the provisions of this section, is a necessary and indispensable original party, and hence intervention is unnecessary. (See Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1922, 42 S.Ct. 349, 258 U.S. 377, 66 L.Ed. 671.)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-21 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson June 3, 1998

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

WOLF CREEK RATED ‘GOOD’ IN ALL AREAS

IN LATEST NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Wolf Creek, a nuclear power plant near Burlington, Kansas, received

performance ratings of “good” in all areas -- plant operations, maintenance,

engineering, and plant support -- in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s latest

systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) for the facility.

The SALP report was sent Friday, May 22 to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation, which operates the plant. The report evaluates the plant’s performance

from April 6, 1997, to April 18 of this year.

NRC and Wolf Creek officials will discuss the report during a meeting set for 9

a.m. Wednesday, June 17, at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Learning Center near the plant

entrance. The meeting is open for public observation. NRC officials will be available

afterwards to speak with reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas --

plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support -- and assigns ratings of

Category 1, 2, or 3 depending on whether their performance in those areas was

superior, good or acceptable. Wolf Creek was given the following scores on the current

SALP and previous SALP in October 1995.

Functional areas & ratings

Plant Operations Current 2 Previous 2

Maintenance Current 2 Previous 2

Engineering Current 2 Previous 3
Plant Support Current 2 Previous 2

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff

noted that safety performance in most areas had improved since the last report,

although the scores, with the exception of engineering, remained the same.

In the operations area, competent performance by the control room staff was

noted during both routine and nonroutine activities. “Management continued to work on

establishing high performance standards at all levels of the operations organization and

then ensuring that these standards were applied to all site activities,” Mr. Merschoff

said.

Performance in the maintenance area has improved, with the overall material

condition of the plant considered to be very good. The skill of individual craft workers

continued to be noteworthy.

Performance in engineering also improved and was rated “good” due in part to

strong involvement of system and design engineers in maintaining system performance,

improvements in engineering information systems, and thorough self-assessments.

“While initiatives were undertaken to sustain these performance improvements,

inconsistency in the quality of support provided to operations and maintenance remains

a challenge,” Mr. Merschoff cautioned.

In the plant support area, the radiation protection program was well managed

and effective, as was the emergency preparedness area. Security continued to perform

at a high level and improvement was noted in fire protection.
### §130k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 130k was editorially reclassified as section 5547 of this title.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 219]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ219.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 732]]

Public Law 110-219
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  725 Roanoke Avenue in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, as the ``Judge 
    Richard B. Allsbrook Post Office''. <<NOTE: May 7, 2008 -  [H.R. 
                                4211]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JUDGE RICHARD B. ALLSBROOK POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 725 Roanoke Avenue in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Judge Richard B. Allsbrook Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Judge 
Richard B. Allsbrook Post Office''.

    Approved May 7, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4211:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Jan. 22, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §7427. Tax return preparers

In any proceeding involving the issue of whether or not a tax return preparer has willfully attempted in any manner to understate the liability for tax (within the meaning of section 6694(b)), the burden of proof in respect to such issue shall be upon the Secretary.

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, §1203(b)(2)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1690; amended Pub. L. 110–28, title VIII, §8246(a)(2)(J)(i), May 25, 2007, 121 Stat. 202.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7427 was renumbered 7437 of this title.

#### Amendments

2007—Pub. L. 110–28 substituted "Tax return preparers" for "Income tax return preparers" in section catchline and "a tax return preparer" for "an income tax return preparer" in text.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–28 applicable to returns prepared after May 25, 2007, see section 8246(c) of Pub. L. 110–28, set out as a note under section 6060 of this title.
#### § 206.430 General.

This subpart provides guidance on the administration of hazard mitigation grants made under the provisions of section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c, hereafter Stafford Act, or the Act.

[59 FR 24356, May 11, 1994]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.70 Purebred animals for breeding purposes; certificate. ( a ) In connection with the entry of purebred animals for breeding purposes under subheading 0101.11.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), no claim for free entry shall be allowed in liquidation of the entry until the Center director has received from the Department of Agriculture a certificate, or its electronic equivalent, that the animal is purebred of a recognized breed and duly registered in a book of record recognized by the Secretary of Agriculture for that breed. Importers are required by regulation of the Department of Agriculture to make application for a certificate of pure breeding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, on ANH Form 17-338 before the animal will be examined as required by 9 CFR 151.7. Application for the certificate must be executed by the owner agent, or importer and filed at a port of entry designated in the regulations of the Department of Agriculture for the importation of animals (9 CFR 92.3). However, applications for certificates for dogs (other than dogs for handling livestock regulated under 9 CFR 92.18) and cats may be filed either at a designated port of entry or at any other port where Customs entry is made. The regulations of the Department of Agriculture prescribing the requirements for the issuance of certificates of pure breeding provide that all animals imported under such regulations must be accompanied to the port at which examination is to be made by certificates of pedigree and transfer of ownership, or their electronic equivalents, in order that identification may be accomplished, and that, if such animals are moved from such port prior to the presentation of such certificates and transfers, or their electronic equivalents, such action shall constitute a waiver of any further claim to certification under such regulations.
( b ) In the cases of cats and dogs arriving at Canadian border ports, Customs officers and employees are hereby authorized and directed to make the examination required by such regulations of the Department of Agriculture. Customs officers and employees are also authorized and directed to make such examinations at the ports of New York and Boston, provided the dog or cat is brought into the United States by a passenger. At all airports, Customs officers shall make the examination of dogs and cats, whether or not accompanied by the owners, if there is no inspector of the Department of Agriculture stationed there or on duty at the time of arrival.
[28 FR 14663, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 68-154, 33 FR 8730, June 14, 1968; T.D. 78-99, 43 FR 13060, Mar. 29, 1978; T.D. 87-75, 52 FR 20066, May 29, 1987; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51250, Dec. 21, 1988; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61284, Oct. 13, 2015]
### §155. Temporary transfer of bankruptcy judges

(a) A bankruptcy judge may be transferred to serve temporarily as a bankruptcy judge in any judicial district other than the judicial district for which such bankruptcy judge was appointed upon the approval of the judicial council of each of the circuits involved.

(b) A bankruptcy judge who has retired may, upon consent, be recalled to serve as a bankruptcy judge in any judicial district by the judicial council of the circuit within which such district is located. Upon recall, a bankruptcy judge may receive a salary for such service in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States, subject to the restrictions on the payment of an annuity in section 377 of this title or in subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapter 84, of title 5 which are applicable to such judge.

(Added Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §104(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 339; amended Pub. L. 99–651, title II, §202(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3648; Pub. L. 100–659, §4(a), Nov. 15, 1988, 102 Stat. 3918.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–659 inserted "section 377 of this title or in" after "annuity in" and "which are applicable to such judge" after "title 5".

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–651 inserted reference to chapter 84 of title 5.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–659 effective Nov. 15, 1988, and applicable to bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges who retire on or after Nov. 15, 1988, with exception for judges and magistrate judges retiring on or after July 31, 1987, see section 9 of Pub. L. 100–659, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 377 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–651, title II, §203, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3649, provided that: "This title and the amendments made by this title [enacting section 375 of this title and amending this section and sections 374, 631, 633, 636, and 797 of this title] take effect on January 1, 1987."