alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10982 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus JOSE GUADALUPE GUERRERO-RODRIGUEZ, Also Known as Jesus Lopez Cabral,
Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16 -CR- 17 -1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Jose Guerrero

- Rodriguez appeals the above- guidelines sentence imposed

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10982 Document: 00514075419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2017No. 16

- 10982

2 for illegal r e entry after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonable

ness of the sentence , which we review for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “ A non

- Guidelines sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) rep resents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. ” United States v. Diehl , 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). “ [R]eview for substan

tive reasonableness is highly def erential.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The court based the sentence on permissible statutory factors. In

essence , Guerrero-Rodriguez is requesting that this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of our review. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. There is no indication that the district court gave improper weight to Guerrero-Rodriguez’s extensive history of immigration violations or any mitigating factors. See United States v. Lopez -Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Likewise, the degree of the upward variance does not
render the sentence substantive ly unreasonable. See United States v. Key , 599 F.3d 469, 475

- 76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347,
348 –50 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED. Case: 16-10982 Document: 00514075419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2017
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD , KIRKBY , and DALY Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Randolph T. H OPE Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 2300125

_________________________ Decided: 20 December 2023 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge :

Yong J. Lee
S entence adjudged 3 March 2023 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, consisting of a military judge sitting a lone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for six months , forfeiture o f $1,278 .00 pay per month for six months , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. 1

1 We note that the m ilitary j udge’s initial announcement regarding adjudged forfeiture of pay was inconsistent with Rule for Courts

- Martial [R.C.M.] 1003(b)(2) and that the subsequent correction was discussed via email rather than at a post

- trial Article 39(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] session, as prescribed in R.C.M. 1104(b)(1)(C). However, we find no prejudice to Appellant

.United States v. Hope , NMCCA No. 20 2300125 Opinion of the Court

2 For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Doug Ottenwess , JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)
.

_________________________ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 2 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2384 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2384

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide an exemption from 
 Interstate System weight limitations for milk hauling vehicles in the 
                         State of Connecticut.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2003

 Mr. Simmons (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Shays, Ms. 
DeLauro, and Mr. Larson of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide an exemption from 
 Interstate System weight limitations for milk hauling vehicles in the 
                         State of Connecticut.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM INTERSTATE SYSTEM WEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR MILK 
              HAULING VEHICLES IN CONNECTICUT.

    Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The State of Connecticut may allow, 
by special permit, on Interstate System highways in the State the 
operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of up to 99,000 
pounds for the hauling of milk in liquid form.''.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER THOMAS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2682

[ December 13, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 10

- 15070CF10A, 10

- 16545CF10A and 10

- 16548CF10A

.
Christopher Thomas, Blountstown, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.
Warner, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0465

SAT Date: 6/4/2013

Print Date: 9/30/2013

Related cases:

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: No comment on most of the P2 claim; however, there is no reason to 

believe that this compound is less toxic than what it is replacing 

of the same material).

Keywords:

 Keywords: UNCERT-LIVER, AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0465

FATE: Estimations for typical 

Liquid with MP < 25 °C (E)

log Kow = 7.14 (E); 

S = 0.019 mg/L at 25 °C (E)
VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E)

BP > 400 °C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 7.08 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.98 (E)

log Fish BAF = 0.59 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and possible partial biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor all routes based on physical/chemical 

properties. There is uncertain concern for liver effects. Smaller molecules with the 

and benzotriazole moieties have been shown to cause liver effects. For example, 

caused liver effects at all dose levels (LOEL = 50 mg/kg) when tested in a 28-day oral study in 

rats Low moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.017

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.048

green algal 96-h EC50 0.14

fish _ chronic value 0.002 benzotriazole SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.004 benzotriazole SAR

algal _ chronic 

value

0.032

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for benzotriazoles, 

 log Kow = 7.14 (EPI); liquid 

with S = 0.019 mg/L at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 1 benzotriazole SAR
(ppb)

SARs benzotriazoles, 

SAR Class benzotriazole, 

Ecotox Category Benzotriazoles

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
#### RITH ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 92-480 L.

United States Court of Federal Claims.

July 14, 1999.

ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WIESE, Judge. .

The restrictions imposed by Tennessee’s Water Quality Control Act with regard to use of the State’s water resources do not represent a set of newly-proclaimed tenets of public nuisance law. To the contrary, activities that cause the pollution of domestic waters have long been recognized by the courts of Tennessee to be contrary to the public’s health and safety and therefore enjoinable as a nuisance. *Nunnelly v. Southern Iron Co.,*94 Tenn. 397, 29 S.W. 361 (1895); *H.B. Bowling Coal Co. v. Ruffner,*117 Tenn. 180, 100 S.W. 116 (1907); *Love v. Nashville Agricultural and Normal Institute,*146 Tenn. 550, 243 S.W. 304 (1922).

And whether the enforcement of these restrictions is accomplished by the state regulatory body or by federal officials acting under the authority of SMCRA is not an issue relevant to the takings analysis. Under the holding of *Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,*505 U.S. 1003, 1029, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), the test is whether the property use that is proscribed is based on “restrictions that background principles of *367the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.” Where that condition is met, no compensation is owed.

The property use that was denied here, the conduct of a surface mining operation that held out a “high probability” of introducing acid mine drainage into the Sewanee Conglomerate aquifer, is not a property use plaintiff could legitimately claim it had a right to pursue in consonance with relevant state property and nuisance principles.

The motion for reconsideration is denied.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. III-12-010

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil (630) 829-9663

March 28, 2012

E-Mail: OPA3@nrc.gov 

NRC DETERMINES BRECKENRIDGE DISPOSAL SITE IN MICHIGAN IS SAFE 

FOR UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC USE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that the former Breckenridge

Disposal Site in Breckenridge, Mich., is acceptable for unrestricted public use after determining 

it meets regulatory requirements for protecting public health and safety.

The site, a narrow, wedge-shaped parcel of land about 5,285 square meters in size, was 

used by the former Michigan Chemical Company to dispose of waste containing elevated levels 

of radioactive uranium and thorium generated during the processing of rare earth oxides. The 

company operated a chemical plant in nearby St. Louis, Mich., from 1967 through 1970. Its 

license from the Atomic Energy Commission was terminated in 1971, and the disposal site was 

declared suitable for public use.

Several years later, however, radiation levels above NRC limits were detected at the 

disposal site. Through ownership changes and a bankruptcy settlement with the U.S. 

government, title for the disposal site fell to a custodial trust established to remediate the 

property to meet NRC requirements. The trust and its contractor, EnergySolutions, completed 

remediation and submitted a final status survey report to the NRC in October 2011.

The NRC conducted 25 onsite inspections during remediation, as well as independent and 

confirmatory surveys. The agency staff’s review of the remediation is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation Report available through the NRC’s ADAMS online database using accession 

number ML12052A066, and is summarized in a Federal Register notice published on March 27.

Residual radioactivity at the disposal site is now below the limit of 25 millirem per year 

as specified in NRC regulations, giving reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 

public will not be endangered by the unrestricted use of the site. This action ends NRC 

involvement with the disposal site unless new information is identified that would alter the 

agency’s conclusion.
###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address:

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a 

SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

Web site.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CLEFF et al.

No. 14104.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 15, 1954.

George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Pindling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elizabeth Weston, Jacques Schurre, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Mrs. Edwin Selvin, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent.

Before STEPHENS, ORR and FEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Although the respondents are in default since no papers have been filed by them in this Court and the General Counsel has moved for summary enforcement, we have carefully examined the record.

The Trial Examiner and the Board agreed in this case upon the findings of fact and the credibility to be given to the witnesses. The evidence was clear and substantial in support of the essential findings. The jurisdictional facts were clearly established. There was no designated collective bargaining agency, and the shop was not union organized at the time of the event. It was clearly shown that *Cleff, one of*the respondents, discharged one Ullo for raffling off a doll on the express grounds that it was a union organizational device. This was a violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.1 It was proved that Cleff ordered a forelady to “watch out” for union members, and thus sought to identify such members in its employ with the purpose of preventing the union from organizing the shop. Although the orders were not carried out, the fore-lady communicated the instructions to the employees. This interrogation and surveillance for the unlawful purpose of preventing organization were threats of reprisal against union members and potential union organizers, and were interdicted by Section 8(a) (1) of the statute. The order is therefore well founded and should be enforced.

*2This Court will not examine the question of whether the methods and devices selected by the Board as adequate to cure the situation are in fact necessary.

The order will be enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (3) and (1).
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-227

IN RE: WAYNE R. HARTKE

2016 DDN 374

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 200378

BEFORE: Easterly, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and Reid, Senior Judges.

O R D E R

(FILED – June 29, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the 

practice of law in Virginia for three years following his stipulation to misconduct 

involving the failure to correct misrepresentations to bar counsel and his 

subsequent failure to comply with the conditions of his six-month suspension; this 

court’s April 14, 2017, order suspending respondent pending disposition of this 

case and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not 

be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel recommending the substantially 

different sanction of a three-year suspension with a fitness requirement; and it 

appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s show cause order

or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Wayne R. Hartke is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for three years with a fitness requirement. See In 

re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of 

identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); 

D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c)(4), (e) (permitting this court to “impose such discipline as 

it deems appropriate” where the “misconduct established warrants substantially 

different discipline in the District of Columbia”); see also In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 
2

6, 25 (D.C. 2005) (setting forth the standard for imposition of a fitness requirement 

and finding such requirement warranted where “the respondent has repeatedly 

evinced indifference . . . toward the disciplinary procedures by which the Bar 

regulates itself.”). For purposes of eligibility to petition for reinstatement, the 

suspension will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar R. 

XI, § 14 (g) affidavit. 

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Moe Stillman, Also Known as Moses E. Stillman, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Mac-Crate, JJ. [See *post,*p. 746.]
#### Joseph Di Fiore, Sr., an Incompetent Person, by Joseph Di Fiore, Jr., His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

*886Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
#### § 712.3 Initial declaration requirements for declared facilities which are engaged in the production of Schedule 1 chemicals for purposes not prohibited by the CWC.

Initial declarations submitted in February 2000 remain valid until amended or rescinded. If you plan to change/amend the technical description of your facility submitted with your initial declaration, you must submit an amended initial declaration to BIS 200 calendar days prior to implementing the change (see § 712.5(b)(1)(ii) of the CWCR).
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned officer of Eschelon Telecom, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, as amended, (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Sign:                   | /S/   Geoffrey M. Boyd |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Geoffrey M. Boyd        |                                  |
| Chief Financial Officer |                                  |
| November 13, 2006  |                                  |

 

----
NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 

TO MEET OCT. 2-4 IN ROCKVILLE, MD. 

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) will hold a public meeting Oct. 2-4 in Rockville, Md., to discuss several issues of 

current interest, including the license renewal application for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant. Other topics to be covered include the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor 

(ESBWR) Design Certification application, historical perspectives and insights on reactor 

consequence analyses, and the status of resolution of Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191: 

Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor (PWR) Sump Performance. 

The ACRS advises the Commission, independently from the NRC staff, on safety issues 

related to the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. 

 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North 

building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. Thursday and Friday’s sessions will run from 8:30 a.m. to 7 

p.m. and Saturday’s session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. A complete agenda is available 

on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2008. 

 Anyone with questions or those wishing to make public statements during the meeting 

should contact Antonio Dias, at (301) 415-6805. To pursue video conferencing services, contact 

Theron Brown, at (301) 415-8066. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-170 September 16, 2008