alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 January 13, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 04-2662 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. TEK NGO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin No.03-CR-110-C Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge O R D E R After the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are to be applied only in an advisory fashion, United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have sentenced Ngo differently had it known that it was not bound by the guidelines. See United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge replied that she would have imposed an identical sentence even under advisory guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments concerning the reasonableness of Ngo’s sentence, and after considering both responses, we affirm. The district court, after determining that Ngo is a career offender, imposed a sentence of 210 months—the low end of the range of 210 to 240 months. Ngo makes no argument as to why this sentence might be unreasonable. Instead he argues UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-2662 Page 2 that the “only appropriate remedy for the Bookerviolation in this case is a remand for resentencing” and that the sentencing error was plain “regardless of the district court’s speculation as to what it might have done.” In short, he challenges the procedure outlined by Paladino. But he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that applies to a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range. See United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court acknowledged, in accordance with our May 3 opinion, that whether Ngo should be considered a career offender under the guidelines is a close question in light of the relatedness of the predicate crimes. Upon reconsideration the district judge has decided that it was indeed appropriate to sentence Ngo as a career offender. We cannot say that its conclusion is unreasonable given the advisory nature of the guidelines and, mo re importantly, Ngo’s failure to offer any argument on the subject. The district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the interests in holding Ngo accountable for the severity of his crimes and protecting the community from further criminal conduct. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

ACADIA SENESE (CABN 251287)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone:(415) 436-6809

Fax: (415) 436-7234

Email: acadia.senese@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DANIEL A. PESCE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 09-1193 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM MAY 17,

2010 TO JUNE 28, 2010

On May 17, 2010, the parties in this case appeared before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel for

a status appearance. At that time, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the

Speedy Trial Act calculation from May 17, 2010 to June 28, 2010 for effective preparation of

defense counsel. The parties also stipulated that time should be excluded for defense counsel to

review the defendant’s lengthy medical records and conduct a mental examination. See 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(A). The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 

The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance 

//

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 39 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 2

outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: 5/17/10 ______/s/___________________

ACADIA SENESE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 5/17/10 ______/s/_____________________

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for Daniel A. Pesce

DATED: 5/17/10 _____/s/_______________________

DANIEL A. PESCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from May 17,

2010 to June 28, 2010, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ ________________________________________

THE HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Court Judge 

5/14/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 39 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 306.4 Coverage. ( a ) Except as set out below, these procedures apply to all Peace Corps applicants, trainees, and volunteers. ( 1 ) To the extent that a trainee or volunteer makes a complaint containing an allegation of prohibited discrimination in connection with conduct that constitutes sexual misconduct as defined in the Peace Corps' policy on volunteer sexual misconduct.
( 2 ) When an applicant, trainee, or volunteer makes a complaint which contains an allegation of prohibited discrimination in connection with an early termination or other administrative procedure of the agency, only the allegation of prohibited discrimination will be processed under this part. At the discretion of the OCRD Director, additional allegations or claims material to the complaint may be consolidated with the discrimination complaint for processing under these regulations. Any issues which are not so consolidated will continue to be processed under those procedures pursuant to which they were originally raised.
( 3 ) Complaints of retaliation in connection with allegations made under the Peace Corps Volunteer Confidentiality Protection policy shall be handled in accordance with that policy.
( b ) The OCRD Director has the discretion to consolidate complaints from different applicants, Trainees, or Volunteers that allege common underlying facts and similar claims.
( c ) These regulations do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Coverage under these rules does not constitute acceptance by the agency or the United States Government of jurisdiction for judicial review.
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.15 Reporting requirements. ( a ) Sponsors must submit annual reports to the Department of State that are generated through SEVIS on Form DS-3097. Such reports must be filed on an academic, calendar, or fiscal year basis, as directed by the Department of State in the sponsor's letter of designation or redesignation, and must contain the following: ( 1 ) *Program report and evaluation.* A summary of the activities in which exchange visitors were engaged, including an evaluation of program effectiveness, program difficulties, and number of staff used in the administration of the exchange visitor program;
( 2 ) *Reciprocity.* A description of the nature and extent of reciprocity occurring in the sponsor's exchange visitor program during the reporting year;
( 3 ) *Cross-cultural activities.* A description of the cross-cultural activities the sponsor provided for its exchange visitors during the reporting year;
( 4 ) *Proof of insurance.* Certification of compliance with insurance coverage requirements set forth in § 62.14;
( 5 ) *Certification.* The following certification: “I certify that the information in this report is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; and, that the above named program sponsor has complied with all health and accident insurance requirements for exchange visitors and their accompanying spouses and dependents (22 CFR 62.14).”
( i ) For exchange visitor programs classified as “Government Programs,” this certification will be signed by the Responsible Officer.
( ii ) For exchange visitor programs classified as P-1 or P-2 “Academic Programs” this certification will be signed by the institution's Chief Executive Officer or Responsible Officer.
( iii ) For exchange visitor programs classified as P-3 and P-4 “Private Sector Programs,” this certification will be signed by the organization's Chief Executive Officer or Responsible Officer.
( 6 ) *Program participation.* A numerical count of all exchange visitors participating in the sponsor's program for the reporting year (*i.e.*, by category, form usage, active status at one point during the annual cycle, and by other status).
( b ) Sponsors of P-3 and P-4 “Private Sector” programs must file a program specific management review (in a format and on a schedule approved by the Department of State).
[79 FR 60307, Oct. 6, 2014]
§ 100.143 Appropriate corrective action. ( a ) The report or results of a self-test are privileged as provided in this subpart if the lender has taken or is taking appropriate corrective action to address likely violations identified by the self-test. Appropriate corrective action is required when a self-test shows it is more likely than not that a violation occurred even though no violation was adjudicated formally.
( b ) A lender must take action reasonably likely to remedy the cause and effect of the likely violation and must: ( 1 ) Identify the policies or practices that are the likely cause of the violation, such as inadequate or improper lending policies, failure to implement established policies, employee conduct, or other causes; and
( 2 ) Assess the extent and scope of any likely violation, by determining which areas of operation are likely to be affected by those policies and practices, such as stages of the loan application process, types of loans, or the particular branch where the likely violation has occurred. Generally, the scope of the self-test governs the scope of the appropriate corrective action.
( c ) Appropriate corrective action may include both prospective and remedial relief, except that to establish a privilege under this subpart: ( 1 ) A lender is not required to provide remedial relief to a tester in a self-test;
( 2 ) A lender is only required to provide remedial relief to an applicant identified by the self-test as one whose rights were more likely than not violated;
( 3 ) A lender is not required to provide remedial relief to a particular applicant if the statute of limitations applicable to the violation expired before the lender obtained the results of the self-test or the applicant is otherwise ineligible for such relief.
( d ) Depending on the facts involved, appropriate corrective action may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: ( 1 ) If the self-test identifies individuals whose applications were inappropriately processed, offering to extend credit if the applications were improperly denied; compensating such persons for any damages, both out-of-pocket and compensatory;
( 2 ) Correcting any institutional policies or procedures that may have contributed to the likely violation, and adopting new policies as appropriate;
( 3 ) Identifying, and then training and/or disciplining the employees involved;
( 4 ) Developing outreach programs, marketing strategies, or loan products to serve more effectively the segments of the lender's market that may have been affected by the likely violation; and
( 5 ) Improving audit and oversight systems to avoid a recurrence of the likely violations.
( e ) Determination of appropriate corrective action is fact-based. Not every corrective measure listed in paragraph (d) of this section need be taken for each likely violation.
( f ) Taking appropriate corrective action is not an admission by a lender that a violation occurred.
[62 FR 66432, Dec. 18, 1997]
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the undersigned officer of Guitar Center, Inc. (the “*Company*”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)    theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 (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 the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date:  August 9, 2007 |   | /s/ ERICK  MASON          |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                       |   | Erick Mason               |
|                       |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

 

 

----
Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document87 Filed05/10/10 Page1 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document87 Filed05/10/10 Page2 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document87 Filed05/10/10 Page3 of 5 
Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/12/10 Page 4 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document87 Filed05/10/10 Page4 of 5
Case3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document87 Filed05/10/10 Page5 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

APPROVED

Judge Jeffrey S. White

Dated: May 12, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/12/10 Page 5 of 5
§ 203.351 Application for insurance benefits and fiscal data. On the date the assignment of the mortgage is filed for record, the mortgagee shall forward to the Commissioner the prescribed application for insurance benefits and fiscal data pertaining to the mortgage transaction, together with the receipts covering all disbursements, as required by the fiscal data form. In addition, the following requirements shall be met: ( a ) *Items to be included with application.* The following items shall be forwarded to the Commissioner with the application: ( 1 ) *Credit and security instrument.* The original credit and security instruments assigned without recourse or warranty, except that no act or omission of the mortgagee shall have impaired the validity and priority of the mortgage.
( 2 ) *Recorded assignment instrument.* The original of the recorded assignment of mortgage. If the original of the assignment is not available, a copy shall be furnished and the original forwarded as soon as possible.
( 3 ) *Hazard insurance.* All hazard insurance policies held in connection with the mortgaged property, together with a copy of the mortgagee's notification to the carrier authorizing the amendment of the loss payable clause substituting the Commissioner as the mortgagee.
( 4 ) *Rights and interests.* An assignment of all rights and interests arising under the mortgage, and all claims of the mortgagee against the mortgagor or others arising out of the mortgage transaction.
( 5 ) *Property.* All property of the mortgagor held by the mortgagee or to which it is entitled (other than the cash items which are to be retained by the mortgagee).
( 6 ) *Records and accounts.* All records, ledger cards, documents, books, papers and accounts relating to the mortgage transaction.
( 7 ) *Additional information.* Any additional information or data which the Commissioner may require.
( 8 ) *Title evidence.* All title evidence held by the mortgagee. It need not be extended to include the recordation of the assignment. If a mortgagee's title policy is furnished, the Commissioner shall be a named insured under such policy.
( b ) *Items to be retained by mortgagee.* The mortgagee shall retain all cash amounts held or deposited for the account of the mortgagor or to which it is entitled under the mortgage transaction that have not been applied in reduction of the principal mortgage indebtedness.
( c ) Title evidence for mortgages insured under § 203.43d as set forth in § 203.385 shall accompany the application for insurance benefits.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 7693, Apr. 10, 1972; 42 FR 57435, Nov. 2, 1977]
COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NO. 03-14-00621-CV

Frank M. Seliper PLAINTIFF

vs. Ethiopian Evangelical Church IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

DEFENDANT THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: THAT THE COURT GRANT A 30 DAY CONTINANCE—FOR THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF—CURRENTLY DUE ON FEBRUARY 4th, 2015 The Plaintiffin the caselisted above requests a 30-day extension ofthe due date for the Appellant's Brief for the following reason: 

### The Plaintiffis consulting with a person with legal expertise in the currentappeal. That 

### person has hadafamily issue - andwill notbe available for about 3 weeks. The 30-day extension will be sufficient time to allow for resolution of the family issue and the completion ofthe Appellant's Briefto be filed. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

o-se

NAMEW DEFENDANT PRINTED Certificate ofService I certify that a complete copy ofthis document was delivered tothe Defendant's attorney... by certified mail. 

### /'RECEIVED ^ FEB 112015 THIRD COURTCFAPPEALS/ V -IFFFREYD. KYIE ./ Certificate ofConference 

# z/7&/^fi/<r- & As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify that1 have conferred with theappropriate party on the merits of this motion with the following results:



### On the 30TM Day ofJanuary 2015, the Plaintiffconferred by phone with opposing counsel- concerning the above Motion, he stated that he was opposed. He did not give any reason «as to why he opposed the motion.

# 1 r

(VI



### I (a » 

# 8 3 -n & . m # •
#### § 204.11 The Guaranty.

Subject to these standard terms and conditions, the United States of America, acting through A.I.D., agrees to pay to any Lender or Assignee who has been determined to be an Eligible Investor compensation in Dollars equal to its Loss of Investment under the Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Lender or Assignee is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Lender or Assignee.

This Guaranty shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Paying Agent.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0113 

FILED 

PAUL ANTHONY EMRICH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PETER BLUDWORTH, Warden, 

Crossroads Correctional Center, 

Respondent. 

FEB 2 8 2°23 

Bovven Gteenvvoori 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Paul Anthony Emrich has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, asserting that 

he is due credit for jail time served of 222 days applied to his recent sentence from the 

Missoula County District Court. He includes a copy of the Judgment and a sentence 

calculation. Upon review, we deem it appropriate to require a response to his Petition. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of 

Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, 

and serve a written response together with appropriate documentary exhibits. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Paul Anthony Emrich personally. 

DATED this „Ntilday of February, 2023. 

02/28/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0113
#### § 1000.126 May a recipient charge flat or income-adjusted rents?

Yes, providing the rental or homebuyer payment of the low-income family does not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted income.
### §6324. State energy efficiency goals

Each State energy conservation plan with respect to which assistance is made available under this part on or after August 8, 2005, shall contain a goal, consisting of an improvement of 25 percent or more in the efficiency of use of energy in the State concerned in calendar year 2012 as compared to calendar year 1990, and may contain interim goals.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §364, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 935; Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §691(b)(2), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3288; Pub. L. 101–440, §2(a)(1), Oct. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 1006; Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §123(b), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 616.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–58 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Each State energy conservation plan with respect to which assistance is made available under this part on or after October 1, 1991, shall contain a goal, consisting of an improvement of 10 percent or more in the efficiency of use of energy in the State concerned in the calendar year 2000 as compared to the calendar year 1990, and may contain interim goals."

1990—Pub. L. 101–440 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "Upon the basis of the reports submitted pursuant to this part and such other information as is available, the Secretary shall, at the earliest practicable date, set an energy conservation goal for each State for 1980 and may set interim goals. Such goal or goals shall consist of the maximum reduction in the consumption of energy during any year as a result of the implementation of the State energy conservation plan described in section 6322(b) of this title which is consistent with technological feasibility, financial resources, and economic objectives, by comparison with the projected energy consumption for such State in such year. The Secretary shall specify the assumptions used in the determination of the projected energy consumption in each State, taking into account population trends, economic growth, and the effects of national energy conservation programs."

1978—Pub. L. 95–619 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator", meaning Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, wherever appearing.