alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 165.11 Allegations by interested parties. ( a ) *Filing of allegation.* Any interested party, as defined in § 165.1, may file an allegation that an importer of covered merchandise has evaded AD/CVD orders. An allegation must be filed electronically through the appropriate portal on CBP's online e-Allegations system or through any other method approved or designated by CBP. Each allegation must be limited to one importer, but an interested party may file multiple allegations. An allegation must satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
( b ) *Contents.* An allegation of evasion must include, but is not limited to, the following information: ( 1 ) Name of the interested party making the allegation and identification of the agent filing on its behalf, if any, and the email address for communication and service purposes;
( 2 ) An explanation as to how the interested party qualifies as an interested party pursuant to § 165.1;
( 3 ) Name and address of importer against whom the allegation is brought;
( 4 ) Description of the covered merchandise;
( 5 ) Applicable AD/CVD orders; and
( 6 ) Information reasonably available to the interested party to support its allegation that the importer with respect to whom the allegation is filed is engaged in evasion.
( c ) *Certifications.* An allegation must also be accompanied by the certifications required under § 165.5(b) and the following statement of informed consent from the person making the submission: “I certify my understanding and consent that the information provided for in § 165.11(b)(1) through (5) may be released for public consumption.”
( d ) *Signature.* The person signing the allegation on behalf of the interested party must include his or her name, position in the company or other affiliation, and provide contact information. Electronic submission of this information will be considered “signed” for purpose of filing the allegation.
( e ) *Technical assistance and guidance* — ( 1 ) *Availability.* CBP will provide technical assistance and guidance for the preparation of an allegation of evasion and its submission to CBP, as described in this section. ( i ) *Small businesses.* Small businesses are entitled to technical assistance upon request. In general, small businesses are eligible to make such requests if they have neither adequate internal resources nor financial ability to obtain qualified outside assistance in preparing and submitting for CBP's consideration allegations of evasion. Small businesses must satisfy the applicable standards set forth in 15 U.S.C. 632 and implemented in 13 CFR part 121.
( ii ) *Other parties.* Other parties may request technical assistance, which CBP may provide if resources are reasonably available.
( 2 ) *Requests.* Requests for technical assistance may be made at any time via the email address designated on CBP's online e-Allegations system or through any other method approved or designated by CBP.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* The act of providing technical assistance is not part of the record for the investigation, nor does it compel a decision by CBP to initiate an investigation pursuant to § 165.15.
### §6503. Payments from Senate contingent fund

No payment shall be made from the contingent fund of the Senate unless sanctioned by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. Payments made upon vouchers or abstracts of disbursements of salaries approved by said Committee shall be deemed, held, and taken, and are declared to be conclusive upon all the departments and officers of the Government: Provided, That no payment shall be made from said contingent fund as additional salary or compensation to any officer or employee of the Senate.

(Oct. 2, 1888, ch. 1069, 25 Stat. 546; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §102, 60 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 93–554, title I, Dec. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1776; Pub. L. 104–186, title I, §105(c), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1722.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 68 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is based on provisions of last par. on 25 Stat. 546, act of Oct. 2, 1888, ch. 1069, relating to payments from contingent fund of Senate. Provisions of that par. relating to payments from contingent fund of House of Representatives were classified to section 95 of this title prior to being struck out by Pub. L. 104–186.

#### Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–554 inserted provision relating to applicability to payments made upon abstracts of disbursements of salaries.

1946—Act Aug. 2, 1946, substituted "Committee on Rules and Administration" for "Committee to Audit and Control Contingent Expenses".

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

#### Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Pub. L. 93–554, title I, Dec. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1776, provided in part that the amendment made by Pub. L. 93–554 is effective Jan. 1, 1975.

#### Effective Date of 1946 Amendment

Act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §142, 60 Stat. 834, provided that the amendment made by that act is effective Jan. 2, 1947.
### **CHAPTER 26—DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES**

Sec.
1601.
Findings.
1602.
Definitions.
1603.
Registration of lobbyists.
1604.
Reports by registered lobbyists.
1605.
Disclosure and enforcement.
1606.
Penalties.
1607.
Rules of construction.
1608.
Severability.
1609.
Identification of clients and covered officials.
1610.
Estimates based on tax reporting system.
1611.
Exempt organizations.
1612.
Sense of Senate that lobbying expenses should remain nondeductible.
1613.
Prohibition on provision of gifts or travel by registered lobbyists to Members of Congress and to congressional employees.
1614.
Annual audits and reports by Comptroller General.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the essential employee is discharged or released from active duty. 

The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up to active duty in their role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active military duty. 

Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 14925 Kingsport Rd., Ft. Worth, TX 75155-2243, 1-800-366-6303. 

The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. The number assigned for economic injury is R30500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)   

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 04-22924 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CRISTIAN RAZO SICAIROS, a/k/a 

Cristian Sicairos Razo, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-1460 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00076-JLK-4) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Defendant-Appellant Cristian Razo Sicairos pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine. He appeals his sentence. 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court 

(1) calculated his United States Sentencing Guidelines range as 188 to 235 

months; 

(2) varied downward the equivalent of two offense levels; and 

(3) sentenced him to 188 months. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. 

App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 1, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

ROA, Vol. III at 26-30. The court failed to calculate the post-variance Guidelines range 

(which would have been 151 to 188 months) or explain the sentence imposed. Id. It then 

entered a written judgment indicating the sentence was below the Guidelines range. See 

ROA, Vol. I at 79, 80. Defense counsel did not object to the foregoing; our review is 

therefore for plain error. United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir. 2012). 

 Mr. Sicairos argues, and the Government agrees, that the sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), and constitutes plain error. 

We agree. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we 

vacate Mr. Sicairos’s sentence and remand for resentencing.1

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

 

1

 At the sentencing hearing, the court and counsel for both sides seemed to 

understand that a prospective amendment to the United States Sentencing Guideline 

(“U.S.S.G.”) § 2D1.1 would have reduced the defendant’s base offense level by two, 

and recognized the amendment would not be effective until November 1, 2014, the 

next month. ROA, Vol. III at 23-24, 27. We note that the Probation Office 

determined Mr. Sicairos was responsible for 11.59 kilograms of “ice.” ROA, Vol. II 

at 10. This amount would appear to result in the same base offense level—38—both 

before and after the 2014 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 08 7 . LI NDA CARTER v . Z ACK CARTER, J R.

Zack Cart er, J r., fi led a m o t i o n fo r co n t em p t aft er h i s ex -wi fe fai l ed t o co m p l y wi t h t h e p art i es ’ d i v orce d ecree p ro v i s io n s as t o t h e m ari t al h o m e. Th e t ri al co u rt
i n i t i al l y d en i ed t h e m o t i on bu t ord ered Li n da Cart er t o sel l o r refi nan ce th e h o m e by

A u g u s t 1, 2 0 1 5

. Aft er s h e fai led t o d o s o , th e co urt fo u n d h er i n co n t em p t

. L i n d a Cart er th en fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal

. Ju ri sd i ct i o n , h o w e v e r, ap p ears t o li e i n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

. Un d er t h e G eo rg i a Co n s t i t u t i o n of 1 9 8 3

, Art

. V I

, Sec. VI, Par. III (6 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt has ap p el l at e ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er “ [a] l l d i v o rce an d al i m o ny cas es .”

“ [A] n ap peal fro m t h e j u d gm en t i n a co n t em p t act i o n s eek i n g t o en fo rce an y p o rt i o n

o f [a] d i v o rce d ecree o t h er t h an ch i l d cu s to d y i s an ci l l ary t o d iv o rce an d al i m o n y an d

fal l s wi t h i n [t h e Su p rem e] Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct io n o v er ‘ di v o rce a n d al i m o n y cas es .’ [Ci t s

. ] ” Ro g er

s v. McGa h ee , 27 8 Ga. 2 8 7

, 28 8 (1 ) (6 0 2 SE2 d 5 8 2 ) (2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o Mo r r i s v. S

u r g es , 2 8 4 Ga. 7 48

, 7 5 0 (2 ) (6 7 0 S E 2 d 8 4 ) (2 0 0 8 ). Becau s e t h i s cas e

ap p ears to fal l w it hi n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n , i t i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED

t o t hat Co u rt

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/17/2016 March 17, 2016
1

Filed 12/24/20 P. v. Peternell CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL JOSEPH PETERNELL,

Defendant and Appellant. C091018

(Super. Ct. No. S15CRF0203)

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Joseph Peternell has asked this court to

conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable

issu es on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in

defendant’s favor, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant appeals from his sentencing following the revocation of his probation

after a contested hearing.2

On January 4, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of domestic

violence and admitted to being previously convicted of a domestic v iolence offense. In

exchange for his plea, the trial court granted defendant 60 months of formal probation.

On September 17, 2018, the probation department filed a petition to revoke

defendant’s probation. The trial court reinstated defendant’s probati on on March 18,

2019, but at that time imposed and stayed an upper

- term sentence of five years in prison.

A few months later, the probation department filed another petition to revoke defendant’s

probation. On August 9, 2019, the court held a contested v iolation hearing and sustained

two of the four violations alleged in the petition. At defendant’s sentencing, held on

October 7, 2019, the court lifted the stay on the previously imposed prison sentence.

Defendant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural

history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether

there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days

from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and

defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Our review of the record pursuant to Wende

has discl osed no arguable errors in defendant’s favor.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/

Mauro, Acting P. J.

/s/

Hoch, J.
• 

06/21/93
 

RCRA REVISION CHECKUST 17H
 

Double Liners 

Note: Corrections were made to264.221(c) and 264.301(c) bya May 9,1990 (55 FR 19262; Revision Checklist 77) notice. This correction notice was based ona 

decision reached iniheU.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of.Columbia on June 23, 1987 concerning a lawsuit filed against EPA. States which have notyet 

. adopted the Revision Checklist 17Hprovisions are encouraged toadopt the Revision Checklist n corrections when adopting therequirements addressed by 

Revision Checklist 17 H. . 

FEDERAl 

REqUIREMENT 

FEDERAL 

RCRA 

CITATION 

ANALOGOUS 

.STATE 

CITATION 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

MORE 

EQUIV- STRINALENT GENT 

BROADERIN 

SCOPE 

PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DJSPOSAL FACILITIES 

SUBPART K- SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS 

apply toTSD facilities 264.22Ha) 650(2)(a) x 

j

• 

two ormore liners 

alternative design and 

operating practices 

jmonolills 

redesignate old 

264.221(c), (d) and 

(e) as 264.221(~,

(g) and (h) 

264.221(c) 

264.22Hd) 

264.2211e) 

264.22Hfl-{h) 

650(2}(D 

650(k) 

650{l) 

650(m),(c),m 

x 

x 

x 

x 

SUBPART N- LANDFillS 

DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS 

introductory text 264;301(a) 665(2)(a) x 

two ormore liners 264.30Hc) 665(2)(h) x 

j alternative design and 

operating practices 264.30Hd) 665(2)(j) x 

jmonofills 264.301 (e) 665(2)(k) x 

redesignate old 

264.301(c),{d),(e).{~
 

and (9) as264.301(~,
 

~),(h).(j) and (j) 264.301 (f)-{j) . 665(2)(I)'!c)-lO x
 

landfills inAlabama 264.30Hk) noanalog 

PART 265 -INTERIM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 

• . -Page 1of2 
96/21193 

RCRA REVISION CHECKliST 17H: Double Uners (confd) 

FEDERAL 

REQUIREMENT 

FEDERAL 

RCRA 

CITATION 

ANALOGOUS 

STATE 

CITATION 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

MORE 

EQUIV- SIRINALENT GENT 

BROADERIN 

SCOPE 

SUBPART K- SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 

t 

two ormore liners 

notify Regional 

Administrator 

a1temative design 

and operating 

practices 

265.221(a) 

265.22Hb) 

265.221(c) 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

X 

X 

X 

t 

tmonofills 

allows installed liner 

to bepermitted liner 

265.22Hd) 

265.221(e) 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

X 

X 

SUBPART i.- WASTE PILES 

.DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 

265.254 requirements 

fornew units,' 

expansions, and 

replacements 265.254 400(3)(a) X 

C 

SUBPART N- LANDFillS 

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 

two ormore liners 265.30Ha) 400(3)(a) X 

notify the RA 265.30Hb) 

alternative design and 

toperating practices 265.301 (c) 

tmonofills 265.301 (d) 

t allows installed liner 

tobepermitted liner 265.30He) 

able only to landfills inAlabama. States other than Alabama donothave toadopt this provision. 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

400(3)(a) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- Page 2 of2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEVETTE DUKES, as Plenary Guardian of the property of KIARA 

SHANISE DUKES, an incapacitated person, LATOYA DUKES and 

BRANDON ELLIS,

Appellants,

v.

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, TAKATA 

CORPORATION, a foreign corporation headquartered in Japan, and TK 

HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-240

[April 4, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Janet Carney Crooms, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 56-2012-CA002094 and 56-2013-CA-001009.

Philip M. Burlington and Adam Richardson of Burlington & 

Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Darryl L. Lewis and Michael H. 

Kugler of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, Henry D. Didier of Didier Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, and John Blaise 

Gsanger of Edwards Law Firm, Corpus Christi, Texas, for appellants.

Wendy F. Lumish of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Miami, for Appellee 

Michelin North America, Inc.

Christine Davis Graves and James Parker-Flynn of Carlton Fields, 

Tallahassee, for Appellees Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc.

Theresa Wardon Benz, Michael L. O’Donnell and Edward C. Stewart of 

Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, Denver, Colorado, Pro Hac Vice for Appellee 

Michelin North America, Inc.

Thomas P. Branigan and Jeffrey T. Gorcyca of Bowman and Brooke 

LLP, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Pro Hac Vice for Appellees Takata 

Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc.

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Alexander Dezendorf, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. John F. Poppke, etc., Appellant.

Motion for stay granted on condition that defendant prosecute the appeal, place the case on the non-enumerated calendar for May 14, 1915, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present —Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 181
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 181.42 Duties and fees not subject to drawback. The following duties or fees which may be applicable to a good entered for consumption in the Customs territory of the United States are not subject to drawback under this subpart: ( a ) Antidumping and countervailing duties;
( b ) A premium offered or collected on a good with respect to quantitative import restrictions, tariff rate quotas or tariff preference levels;
( c ) Fees applied under section 22 of the U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Act; and
( d ) Customs duties paid or owed under unused merchandise substitution drawback. There shall be no payment of such drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2) on goods exported to Canada or Mexico on or after January 1, 1994.