alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ray RUTLEDGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50302.

D.C. No. CR-94-00227-GT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

James Ray Rutledge appeals his sentence of twelve months imprisonment and forty-eight months of supervised release, imposed upon revocation of his original term of supervised release. Rutledge originally pleaded guilty to importing marijuana, in violation of 12 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment and *696five years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review de novo the legality of a sentence, *see United States v. Garcia,*112 F.3d 395, 397 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

Rutledge argues that his original five-year term of supervised release exceeded the maximum term prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) and, accordingly, the district court had no jurisdiction to impose either the original or an additional term of supervised release. We are unpersuaded. *See id.*at 398 (recognizing that supervised release terms authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841 trump máximums set forth in § 3583(b)).

Rutledge also challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the statute does not require that his violation of supervised release be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Gomez-Gonzalez,*277 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that any punishment for violating supervised release is considered part of statutory maximum punishment for initial offense, for which defendant has already been convicted after trial subject to full panoply of constitutional guarantees).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### § 18.14 Shipment of baggage in transit to foreign countries.

The baggage of any person in transit through the United States from one foreign country to another may be shipped over a bonded route for exportation. Such baggage must be shipped under the regulations prescribed in § 18.13. See § 123.64 of this chapter for the regulations applicable to baggage shipped in transit through the United States between points in Canada or Mexico.
#### § 1201.64 Official notice.

Official notice is the Board's or judge's recognition of certain facts without requiring evidence to be introduced establishing those facts. The judge, on his or her own motion or on the motion of a party, may take official notice of matters of common knowledge or matters that can be verified. The parties may be given an opportunity to object to the taking of official notice. The taking of official notice of any fact satisfies a party's burden of proving that fact.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40073

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JESUS VASQUEZ-MONTERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-378-1

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent appellant

Jose Jesus Vasquez-Montero (Vasquez) has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Vasquez has not filed a

response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allan J.
Kent, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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(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
      for the periods presented.

















/s/ Allan
J. Kent


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


Allan J.
Kent


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November
10, 2008
#### Dandy Textile Corp., Plaintiff, v. Ferris & Rossborough, Inc., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff. Cambeis Trucking Co., Inc., Third Party Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Potomac Insurance Company of the District of Columbia, Third Party Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for the Brooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway, and Parks and Park Additions, in the Borough of Brooklyn. New York Dock Company, Appellant.

Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 773.]
§ 1631.31 Definitions. *Demand* means a subpoena, or an order or other command of a court or other competent authority, for the production, disclosure, or release of records or for the appearance and testimony of a Board employee that is issued in a legal proceeding.
*General Counsel* means the General Counsel of the Board or his or her delegatee.
*Legal proceeding* means any matter before a court of law, administrative board or tribunal, commission, administrative law judge, hearing officer, or other body that conducts a legal or administrative proceeding. Legal proceeding includes all phases of litigation.
*Board employee or employee* means: ( 1 ) Any current or former officer or employee of the Board;
( 2 ) Any other individual hired through contractual agreement by or on behalf of the Board or who has performed or is performing services under such an agreement for the Board; and
( 3 ) Any individual who served or is serving in any consulting or advisory capacity to the Board, whether formal or informal.
( 4 ) Provided, that this definition does not include persons who are no longer employed by the Board and who are retained or hired as expert witnesses or who agree to testify about general matters available to the public, or matters with which they had no specific involvement or responsibility during their employment with the Board.
*Records or official records and information* mean: ( 1 ) All documents and materials which are Board records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552;
( 2 ) All other documents and materials contained in Board files; and
( 3 ) All other information or materials acquired by a Board employee in the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status.
*Request* means any informal request, by whatever method, for the production of records and information or for testimony which has not been ordered by a court or other competent authority.
*Testimony* means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, recorded interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

 March 2, 2021 s0222

Order 

Clerk

March 2, 2021

161485

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161485

COA: 352347

Oakland CC: 2019-270929-FH

JIMMY RAY LIPPS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2020 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.


/s/ Anthony DiSandro,
-------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ John Carrozza,
-------------------------------------
Vice President and
  Acting Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 31, 2003
### IS-JSREC'D IN COURT 0! ^ 12th Court of AptKV c<G I I /-//>!/, CATHY S. LUSK, CL 

# 4 I 9 d"^y AA£**
#### Anthony Dean JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-16522.

D.C. No. CV-99-00148-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Jackson's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Dean Jackson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Arizona jury trial conviction and sentence for kidnaping and sexual assault. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the sole issue of whether Jackson’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Jackson now contends for the first time that his failure to comply with Arizona’s procedural rules is due to the effects of drug and alcohol abuse. We decline to address this fact-specific claim raised for the first time on appeal. *See Jiminez v. Rice,*276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting *Bolker v. Commissioner,*760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985)). Applying de novo review, *see La Crosse v. Kernan,*244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th cir.2001), we conclude that the district court properly ruled that Jackson’s claims are procedurally defaulted and that he has failed to show cause and prejudice. *See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr.,*800 F,2d 905, 907-908 (9th Cir.1986).

We decline to consider other issues raised by Jackson, that are outside the scope of the COA. *See Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §5351. Establishment of financial crime-free communities support program

(a) Establishment.—The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish a program to support local law enforcement efforts in the development and implementation of a program for the detection, prevention, and suppression of money laundering and related financial crimes.

(b) Program.—In carrying out the program, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall—

(1) make and track grants to grant recipients;

(2) provide for technical assistance and training, data collection, and dissemination of information on state-of-the-art practices that the Secretary determines to be effective in detecting, preventing, and suppressing money laundering and related financial crimes; and

(3) provide for the general administration of the program.

(c) Administration.—The Secretary shall appoint an administrator to carry out the program.

(d) Contracting.—The Secretary may employ any necessary staff and may enter into contracts or agreements with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to delegate authority for the execution of grants and for such other activities necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 105–310, §2(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2946.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Registrant's  unaudited interim  financial  statements for the nine month period
ended  September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to those
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000895993
<NAME> RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II
         <S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         116,514
<SECURITIES>                                10,576,281<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,332
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,093,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,942,201<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,093,758
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               560,448
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                476,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            476,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   476,806
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2,026
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2,026

<FN>
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships.
<F3>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest
in Trust with capital accounts of $12,024,022 less
managing shareholder's accumulated deficit of $81,821.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 1210.15 Agency duty to assist in expedited review. ( a ) As required by 38 U.S.C. 713(e)(6), the agency is required to provide the administrative judge such information and assistance as may be necessary to ensure that an appeal covered by this part is completed in an expedited manner.
( b ) The agency must promptly notify the MSPB whenever it issues a Secretarial determination subject to appeal under this part. Such notification must include the location where the employee worked, the type of action taken, and the effective date of the action. Notification should be sent to *VASES@mspb.gov .*
No. 3822

#### Verne E. Scott, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 15, 1944.*

C. E. Tate, for claimant.

George F. Barrett, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Eckert, J.

In Ms complaint filed in this case on November 22, 1943, the claimant, Verne E. Scott, alleges that he is employed as a jarntor in the Chemistry Annex at the UMversity of Illinois; that on April 6,1942, wMle carrying steel lockers from the Chemistry Annex to the Huff Gymnasium, he slipped and fell, sustaining permanent injury in the lower region of Ms back and spinal column; that despite his injury he continued Ms work, and on the 16th of April, 1942, while lifting paper towels onto shelves in the janitor’s room in the Chemistry Annex, he felt his back “let loose”; that as a result thereof he was hospitalized both in Urbana, Illinois, and at CMcago, Illinois; that he is permanently and totally disabled from pursmng his usual occupation.

*164Respondent has filed a motion to dis.miss the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within one year after the date of the accident, in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Illinois Workmen’s Compensation Act. That section of the Act provides that the right to file application for compensation shall be barred unless such application is filed within one year after the date of the accident, where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, where any has been, paid. It has been repeatedly held by the Illinois Supreme Court that compliance with this section is a condition precedent to the right to maintain proceedings under the Compensation Act. *City of Rochelle*vs. *Industrial Commission,*332 Ill. 386; *Inland Rubber Co.*vs. *Industrial Commission,*309 Ill. 43. The decisions of this court are to like effect. *Simpson*vs. *State,*10 C. C. R. 394; *Baker*vs. *State,*10 C. C. R. 111. Furthermore, in' claims by State employees for compensation for accidental injuries, arising out of, and in the course of their employment, Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is controlling as to time within which such claims must be filed, and Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act allowing claims against the State to be filed within five years after their accrual is wholly inapplicable. *Boismenue*vs. *State,*12 C. C. R. 36. Claimant having failed to comply with Section 24 of the Act, the court is without jurisdiction to make an award.

The motion of the respondent is therefore granted. Case dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Notice of Resource Advisory Committee, Sundance, Wyoming, USDA, Forest Service. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Black Hills National Forests' Crook County Resource Advisory Committee will meet Tuesday, February 17th, in Sundance, Wyoming for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meeting on February 17, begins at 6:30 p.m., at the US Forest Service, Bearlodge Ranger District office, 121 South 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming. Agenda topics will include: Updates on previously funded projects and a review of proposals still needing action. A public forum will begin at 8:30 p.m. (MT). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Kozel, Bearlodge District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, at (307) 283-1361. 

Dated: December 17, 2003. 

Steve Kozel, 

Bearlodge District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 04-2402  Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Ambrose Contracting Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Lew Morris Demolition Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur._
§ 175.21 Notice of filing of petition, inspection of petition, and inspection of documents and papers. ( a ) *Notice of filing of petition.* Upon the filing of a petition, a notice shall be published in the Federal Register setting forth that a petition has been filed by a domestic interested party, identifying the merchandise which is the subject of the petition, and its present and claimed appraised value or classification or rate of duty. The notice shall invite interested persons to make such written submissions as they desire within such time as is specified in the notice.
( b ) *Inspection of petition; inspection of documents and papers.* The petition filed by a domestic interested party will be made available for inspection by interested parties in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). However, neither a petitioner nor other interested parties will in any case be permitted to inspect documents or papers of the importer of record which are exempted from disclosure by 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Identifying data is not to be deleted from petitions filed by American manufacturers, producers, and wholesalers pursuant to section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516).
(R.S. 251, as amended, secs. 516, 624, 46 Stat. 735, as amended, 759; 5 U.S.C. 552, 19 U.S.C. 66, 1516, 1624)
[T.D. 74-236, 39 FR 33207, Sept. 16, 1974, as amended by T.D. 80-271, 45 FR 75642, Nov. 17, 1980; T.D. 81-168, 46 FR 32574, June 24, 1981; CBP Dec. 15-16, 80 FR 71693, Nov. 17, 2015]
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine

Loading...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/fs_ahanthravac.pdf | 16:49:41 Aug 6, 2013

Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time

Redirecting to...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/404.shtml

Impatient?

The Wayback Machine is an initiative of the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.Other projects include Open Library & archive-it.org.

Your use of the Wayback Machine is subject to the Internet Archive's Terms of Use.