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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus ELIAS ECHEVERRIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Francisco Javier Tiznado-Partida, a/k/a Martin Pineda, a/k/a Juan Lopez Pineda, a/k/a Elias Echevarria, a/k/a Elilas Mendez Echevarria, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00048-1) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan Gates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We note that this argument relates only to the 240-monthsentence imposed on Echeverria-Mendez’s conviction for illegal reentry. His offense level for that crime was increased by sixteen levels based on his prior conviction. His 360-month sentences for the drug trafficking crimes were based only on the applicable drug quantities. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Elias Echeverria-Mendez pled guilty to eight counts of a superseding indictment, which charged him with drug trafficking, money laundering, and alien re-entry offenses. The district court sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment on the controlled substance offenses, and 240 months on the money laundering and illegal re-entry convictions, all to run concurrent with each other. On appeal Echeverria-Mendez argues that his sentence was unlawfully enhanced based on prior convictions. * In United States v. Cheek , 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005), we considered and rejected an argument identical to that which Echeverria-Mendez raises on appeal. We concluded: It is thus clear that the Supreme Court continues to hold that the Sixth Amendment (as well as due process) does not demand that the mere fact of a prior conviction used as a basis for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded in an indictment and submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even were we to agree with Cheek’s prognostication that it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court overrules Almendarez-Torres [v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998)], we are not free to overrule or ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents.- 3 - Cheek , 415 F.3d at 352-53; seeRodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. , 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court has direct a pplication in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”). We therefore affirm Echeverria-Mendez’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|         |                                                                                                                                                      |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Dated: | February 11, 2020 | By   | /s/ James M. Anderson   |   |
|   |   |   | James M. Anderson  |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
#### § 138.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
(June 16, 1977)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Myers, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County, rendered July 1, 1976, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree. On July 27, 1975 defendant caused the death of Herman Simon by shooting him with a .38 calibre handgun. At least nine bullets struck Simon in the head and back. Eyewitness accounts established that defendant had reloaded his weapon twice before firing ceased and that he had appeared calm throughout the incident. Indicted for second degree murder (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd 1), defendant claimed his wife had been having an affair with Simon, a man physically larger than he and one who had threatened him in the past, so that during the fatal fusillade he had acted justifiably in self-defense and under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law, § 35.15, subd 2, par [a]; § 125.25, subd 1, par [a]). Accordingly, the trial court also submitted to the jury the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law, § 125.20, subd 2), but it rejected the proffered defenses and returned a guilty verdict on the murder charge. Contrary to defendant’s urging, we do not find that verdict to be against the weight of the evidence. All issues relating to the defenses were fully and fairly presented to the jury. It was within the province of that body to resolve the factual conflicts arising from the testimony, including the differences between the expert medical proofs, and a review of the record in its entirety persuades us that there was sufficient evidence to support its ultimate decision. Although defendant’s argument that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance is unconstitutional possesses some appeal *(Mullaney v Wilbur,*421 US 684), his position on that subject is foreclosed by the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of *People v Patterson*(39 NY2d 288, affd 432 US 197) which' we are bound to follow. Lastly, we discern no merit in defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly placed upon him the burden of proving such an affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt. No exception was taken to the portion of the charge now challenged on this appeal. Moreover, the instructions immediately preceding those in question specifically defined the correct burden of proof to be applied and, taken in the context in which they were delivered, succinctly advised the jury of its responsibility in language which could not have been misunderstood. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.
#### § 134.24 Comments by other parties.

Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and Department of State may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the adjudicative officer determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comment.
§ 134.5 Standard for awards. ( a ) A prevailing applicant may receive an award for fees and expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding, or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of the proceeding, unless the position of the agency over which the applicant has prevailed was substantially justified. The burden of proof that an award should not be made to an eligible prevailing applicant is on the Department of State which may avoid an award by showing that its position was reasonable in law and fact.
( b ) An award will be reduced or denied if the applicant has unduly or unreasonably protracted the proceeding or if special circumstances make the award sought unjust.
EX-32.2 CertificationPursuant to Section 906 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof TS&B Holdings, Inc., (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Charles Gianetto, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), thatto 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 result of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Charles Gianetto
§ 9.23 Answering brief. ( a ) *Time for filing answering brief.* Within thirty days after service of the appeal brief, the exchange must file with the Commission an answering brief.
( b ) *Contents of answering brief.* The answering brief generally must follow the same style as prescribed for the appeal brief but may omit a statement of the issues or of the case if the exchange does not dispute the issues or the statement of the case contained in the appeal brief.
( c ) *Length of answering brief.* Without prior leave of the Commission, the answering brief may not exceed thirty-five pages, exclusive of any table of contents, table of cases, index and appendix containing transcripts of testimony, exhibits, statutes, rules, regulations or similar materials.
EXHIBIT 32.2


Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


• the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the year ended September 30, 2024 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


• the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:November 4, 2024By/s/ Scott R. LindquistScott R. LindquistChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
FORM 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: March 31,2005

Check here if Amendment [   ]; Amendment Number:
This Amendment (Check only one.):  [   ] is a restatement.
                                   [   ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:    The Continental Corporation
Address: CNA Plaza
	 Chicago,IL 60685


13F File Number:  28-172

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the
person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person
signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all
information contained herein is true, correct, and complete, and
that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of
this form.


Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:  Lynne Gugenheim
Title: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Phone: (312) 822 4921
Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:
May 12,2005
Chicago, Illinois,60685
I AM SIGNING THIS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Report Type (Check only one.):

 [    ]              13F HOLDINGS REPORT.

 [  x ]              13F NOTICE.

 [    ]              13F COMBINATION REPORT.

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

The securities on which The Continental Corporation exercises
shared investment discretion have been reported upon by CNA Financial
Corporation on behalf of The Continental Corporation.
<Page>
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 89 FR 71806, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 3.44 Temporary licensing of applicants for guaranteed introducing broker registration. ( a ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of these regulations, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of this subpart, the National Futures Association may grant a temporary license to any applicant for registration as an introducing broker upon the contemporaneous filing with the National Futures Association of: ( 1 ) A properly completed guarantee agreement (Form 1-FR part B) from a futures commission merchant or retail foreign exchange dealer which is eligible to enter into such an agreement pursuant to § 1.10(j)(2) of this chapter;
( 2 ) A Form 7-R properly completed in accordance with the instructions thereto;
( 3 ) A Form 8-R for the applicant, if a sole proprietor, and each principal (including each branch office manager) thereof, properly completed in accordance with the instructions thereto, all of whom would be eligible for a temporary license if they had applied as associated persons.
( 4 ) A certification executed by a person duly authorized by the futures commission merchant or retail foreign exchange dealer that has executed the guarantee agreement required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, stating that: ( i ) The futures commission merchant or retail foreign exchange dealer has verified the information on the Forms 8-R filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section which relate to education and employment history of the applicant's principals (including each branch office manager) thereof during the preceding three years; and
( ii ) To the best of the futures commission merchant's or retail foreign exchange dealer's knowledge, information, and belief, all of the publicly available information supplied by the applicant and its principals and each branch office manager of the applicant on the Form 7-R and Forms 8-R, as appropriate, is accurate and complete; and
( 5 ) The fingerprints of the applicant, if a sole proprietor, and of each principal (including each branch office manager) thereof on fingerprint cards provided by the National Futures Association for that purpose.
( b ) The effective date of a guarantee agreement filed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section is the date upon which the temporary license is granted by the National Futures Association.
( c ) An applicant that fails to respond in accordance with a written request by the Commission or the National Futures Association for clarification of any information set forth in the application of the applicant or any principal (including any branch office manager) thereof or for the resubmission of a fingerprint card will be deemed to have withdrawn its registration application and the temporary license issued to such applicant and any associated person thereof shall terminate immediately.
[51 FR 45760, Dec. 22, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 8435, Mar. 15, 1988; 57 FR 23151, June 2, 1992; 64 FR 1728, Jan. 12, 1999; 67 FR 38876, June 6, 2002; 75 FR 55427, Sept. 10, 2010; 77 FR 51908, Aug. 28, 2012]
### §§2621 to 2623. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–203, title VII, §714 formerly title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883; renumbered title VII, §714, Pub. L. 93–567, title I, §101, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1845

Section 2621, Pub. L. 87–415, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 90–636, §12, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1354, set out Congressional findings and declaration of purpose in establishing a study of problems of seasonal unemployment in construction industry.

Section 2622, Pub. L. 87–415, title IV, §402, as added Pub. L. 90–636, §12, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1355, called for a study by Secretaries of Labor and Commerce of means to stabilize employment in construction industry and for a report to President and Congress not later than Dec. 31, 1969.

Section 2623, Pub. L. 87–415, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 90–636, §12, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1355; amended 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085, called for consultation with Federal official on reduction of seasonal unemployment.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 93–203, title VII, §714, formerly title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883; renumbered title VII, §714, Pub. L. 93–567, title I, §101, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1845, provided that the repeal is effective with respect to fiscal years after June 30, 1974.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONG YE

- WAN, AKA Wandong Ye,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 72855 Agency No. A087

- 455

- 726

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023 * *
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Dong Ye

- Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application s for asylum, withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Tortur e

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72855

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th C ir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding whether Ye

- Wan’s wife was sterilized, the
amount of the fines Ye

- Wan paid, when he learned of his wife’s pregnancy, and his wife’s location when family planning officials visited their home on December 6, 2008. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances” ) . Ye

- Wan’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case, Ye

- Wan’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider Ye

- Wan’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of
his claims because the BIA did not decide the m. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v.
Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the gr ounds relied on by the BIA ). Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Ye

- Wan’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Ye

- Wan does3 17

- 72855

not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is m ore likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048

- 49.
To the extent Ye

- Wan contends that the IJ violated his right to due process , we lack jurisdiction to consider it because he did not raise this claim before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) ( petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
§ 1506.20 When and how will USADF collect past due debt through administrative offset? ( a ) Payments otherwise due the debtor from the United States shall be offset from the debt in accordance with 31 CFR 901.3. These may be funds under the control of USADF or other Federal agencies. Collection may be through centralized offset by the Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS) of the Department of the Treasury.
( b ) Such payments include but are not limited to vendor payments, salary, retirement, lump sum payments due upon Federal employment separation, travel reimbursements, tax refunds, loans or other assistance. Offset of Federal salary payments will be in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5514.
( c ) Before administrative offset is instituted by another Federal agency or the BFS, USADF shall certify in writing to that entity that the debt is past due and legally enforceable and that USADF has complied with all applicable due process and other requirements as described in this part and other Federal law and regulations.
H. R. 3772 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 150 South 

Union Street in Canton, Mississippi, as the ‘‘First Sergeant Landres Cheeks 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST SERGEANT LANDRES CHEEKS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 150 South Union Street in Canton, Mississippi, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First Sergeant Landres 

Cheeks Post Office Building’’. 

(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 ‘‘First Sergeant Landres Cheeks Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.