alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

KYLE F. WALDINGER (ILSB 6238304)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6830

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-mail: kyle.waldinger@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.

PETER CHAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-0824 MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

DATE

The defendant Peter Chan is scheduled to be sentenced on June 23, 2010. In an effort to

keep the June 23, 2010 sentencing date, the parties previously waived review of the draft

presentence report. However, upon inspection of the final presentence report, the United States

identified some questions regarding the defendant’s financial assets. In an effort to provide the

parties with sufficient time to resolve the United States’ questions regarding this issue prior to

sentencing, the parties jointly request that

(1) the Court vacate the sentencing date now set for June 23, 2010, at 2:30

p.m. and

(2) re-set the sentencing date for the defendant Peter Chan to July 28, 2010, at

2:30 p.m. This is also the date to which the co-defendant Zhijian Wu has

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CR 09-0824 MMC [PETER CHAN]

Case 3:09-cr-00824-MMC Document 60 Filed 06/21/10 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

requested that his sentencing date be moved.

SO STIPULATED.

DATED: June 16, 2010 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

 /s/

KYLE F. WALDINGER

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: June 16, 2010

 /s/

DOUGLAS I. HORNGRAD

Attorney for Defendant Peter Chan

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the sentencing hearing for the

defendant Peter Chan previously scheduled for June 23, 2010 be continued to July 28, 2010, at

2:30 p.m.

DATED: June ____, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CR 09-0824 MMC [PETER CHAN] 2

21

Case 3:09-cr-00824-MMC Document 60 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PERRY REESE, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00034-FL-1)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry Reese, III, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7024 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Perry Reese, III, appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. We also deny Reese’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7024 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
### **CHAPTER 24—DRAINAGE UNDER STATE LAWS**
### §88. Discharge of cargo of vessel in quarantine

Whenever, by the health laws of any State, or by the regulations made pursuant thereto, any vessel arriving within a collection district of such State is prohibited from coming to the port of entry by law established for such district, and such health laws require or permit the cargo of the vessel to be unladen at some other place within or near to such district, the collector, after due report to him of the whole of such cargo, may grant his warrant or permit for the unlading and discharge thereof, under the care of the surveyor, or of one or more inspectors, at some other place where such health laws permit, and upon the conditions and restrictions which shall be directed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or which such collector may, for the time, deem expedient for the security of the public revenue.

(R.S. §4793; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. I, §201, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2728, 53 Stat. 1424; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Words "or delivery" after "port of entry" which were included in this section as originally enacted were omitted as ports of delivery were abolished pursuant to the President's Message to Congress on Mar. 3, 1913, set out in Codification note under section 1 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

R.S. §4793 derived from act Feb. 23, 1799, ch. 12, §2, 1 Stat. 619.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.

Functions of Department of the Treasury relating to public health transferred to Federal Security Agency pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. I of 1939, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DANIEL YAPP,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

TINA VALDEZ,

Respondent Below,

 Appellee.

§

§ No. 333, 2020

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CK10-02177

§ Petition Nos. 20-06209

§ 20-08000

§ 

§

 Submitted: May 28, 2021

 Decided: July 13, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices.

O R D E R

After careful consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 

Court’s order dated September 3, 2020. The appellant (“Father”) has not 

demonstrated that the Family Court abused its discretion when it determined that 

Father shall have (i) monthly in-person contact with the children at the correctional 

facility where he is incarcerated if he can arrange for the children’s transportation to 

and from the facility, (ii) telephone contact with the children twice weekly, and (iii) 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 

7(d).
2

video contact with the children once weekly.2 The Family Court considered the 

applicable factors under 13 Del. C. § 728(d), and it appears that the court’s findings 

of fact, inferences, and deductions are the product of an orderly and logical deductive 

process.3 The Family Court also did not abuse its discretion by admitting into 

evidence, over Father’s objection, copies of text messages that Father sent to the 

appellee, where Father could not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by their late 

production.

4

 Finally, we find no reversible error in the Family Court’s conclusion 

that the appellee demonstrated just cause for her failure to transport the children to 

visits with Father at the correctional facility in January and February 2020, in 

violation of a consent order that required her to do so.5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice

2 See Scott v. Kraft, 2015 WL 5451697, at *2 (Del. Sept. 15, 2015) (reviewing Family 

Court’s order regarding visitation in a correctional facility for abuse of discretion).

3

Id.

4 See Delong v. Stanley, 1997 WL 673713, at *2 (Del. Oct. 9, 1997) (“We review a trial 

court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.”).

5 See generally Walton v. Walton, 2003 WL 22992210 (Del. Dec. 17, 2003) (affirming 

Family Court’s denial of father’s request to hold mother in contempt because mother’s lack 

of compliance “appeared to stem from a lack of communication between the parties, 

responsibility for which lies equally with [mother and father]”).
### §1315. Rights acquired under laws of United States unaffected

Nothing contained in this subchapter or subchapter I shall affect such rights, if any, as may have been acquired under any law of the United States by any person in lands subject to this subchapter or subchapter I and such rights, if any, shall be governed by the law in effect at the time they may have been acquired: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subchapter or subchapter I is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpretation, or construction by the Congress that the law under which such rights may be claimed in fact or in law applies to the lands subject to this subchapter or subchapter I, or authorizes or compels the granting of such rights in such lands, and that the determination of the applicability or effect of such law shall be unaffected by anything contained in this subchapter or subchapter I.

(May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title II, §8, 67 Stat. 32.)
### §315c. Fences, wells, reservoirs, and other improvements; construction; permits; partition fences

Fences, wells, reservoirs, and other improvements necessary to the care and management of the permitted livestock may be constructed on the public lands within such grazing districts under permit issued by the authority of the Secretary, or under such cooperative arrangement as the Secretary may approve. Permittees shall be required by the Secretary of the Interior to comply with the provisions of law of the State within which the grazing district is located with respect to the cost and maintenance of partition fences. No permit shall be issued which shall entitle the permittee to the use of such improvements constructed and owned by a prior occupant until the applicant has paid to such prior occupant the reasonable value of such improvements to be determined under rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. The decision of the Secretary in such cases is to be final and conclusive.

(June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §4, 48 Stat. 1271.)
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28341]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Final)]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
(Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured by reason of imports from China of wooden 
bedroom furniture, provided for in subheadings 9403.50.90 and 
7009.92.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that 
have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in 
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective October 31, 
2003, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and 
Commerce by the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal 
Trade and its individual members; the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and 
Industrial Carpenters, Local 721; the UBC Southern Council of 
Industrial Workers, Local 2305; the United Steelworkers of America, 
Local 193U; the Carpenters Industrial Union, Local 2093; the Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 991; and the IUE, 
Industrial Division of the CWA, Local 82472.
    The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the 
Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by 
Commerce that imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China were being 
sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the 
Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in 
connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of 
July 15, 2004 (69 FR 42452). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on 
November 9, 2004, and all persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on December 22, 2004. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3743 (December 2004), 
entitled Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-
1058 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 22, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-28341 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### §31f. National geologic map database

#### (a) Establishment

#### (1) In general

The Survey shall establish a national geologic-map database.

#### (2) Function

The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes—

(A) all maps developed with funding provided by the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, including under the Federal, State, and education components;

(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 31c(d)(1)(C)(ii) of this title; and

(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.

#### (b) Standardization

#### (1) In general

Geologic maps contributed to the national archives shall have format, symbols, and technical attributes that adhere to standards so that archival information can be accessed, exchanged, and compared efficiently and accurately, as required by Executive Order 12906 (59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (1994)), which established the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

#### (2) Development of standards

Entities that contribute geologic maps to the national archives shall develop the standards described in paragraph (1) in cooperation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, which is charged with standards development and other data coordination activities as described in Office of Management and Budget revised Circular A–16.

(Pub. L. 102–285, §7, May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 171; Pub. L. 105–36, §3(e), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1110; Pub. L. 106–148, §7, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1723; Pub. L. 111–11, title XI, §11001(g), Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1415.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Executive Order 12906, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is set out as a note under section 1457 of this title.

#### Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(g)(1), substituted "geologic-map" for "geologic map".

Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(g)(2), added subpar. (A) and struck out former subpar. (A) which read as follows: "all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component;".

1999—Pub. L. 106–148 substituted "geologic map database" for "geologic-map data base" in section catchline, added subsec. (a), and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (a). Text read as follows: "The Survey shall establish a national geologic-map data base. Such data base shall be a national archive that includes all maps developed pursuant to sections 31a to 31h of this title, the data bases developed pursuant to the investigations under sections 31c(d)(2)(C), (D), (E), and (F) of this title, and other maps and data as the Survey deems appropriate."

1997—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–36 added subsec. (b) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (b). Text read as follows: "Geologic maps contributed to the national archives should have standardized format, symbols, and technical attributes so that archival information can be assimilated, manipulated, accessed, exchanged, and compared efficiently and accurately."
#### The People of the State of New York v. Chester H. Bell.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before September 11, 1962, with notice of argument for the October 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Defendant’s application for leave to dispense with printing the record on appeal and for leave to have the appeal heard on the original record but upon printed appellant’s points is granted. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 203.482 Registration of debentures.

Debentures shall be registered as to principal and interest.
* 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

August 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60897

Summary Calendar

CHARLES L. STRINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE HERBERT,

DefendantAppellee.

--------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 01-CV-513

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

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles L. Stringer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against appellee Wayne Herbert, a judge,

was dismisse d wit h prejudice by the district court. The district court’s dismissal was based on its

entry of summary judgment against Stringer and in favor of Herbert. On appeal, Stringer challenges-2-

only the district court’s denial of his own summary judgment motion, the grant of Herbert’s summary

judgment motion, and an order entered declaring one of Stringer’s evidentiary motions moot.

The district court granted Herbert’s summary judgment motio n, and denied Stringer’s

summary judgment motion as moot, on the basis that Herbert was entitled to absolute judicial

immunit y from the claims brought in Stringer’s complaint. After a d e novo review of the record, we

conclude that the summary judgment evidence supports the district court’s actions and that Stringer

has not shown on appeal that summary judgment was not properly entered against him. S ee F ED

. R.

C IV

. P. 56(c); Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996); Little v. Liquid

Air Corp.

, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Brinkmann v. Johnston

, 793 F.2d 111, 112

(5th Cir. 1986).

The district court’s denial as moot of Stringer’s motion for de novo review of the magistrate

judge’s evidentiary ruling was filed on the same day that the district court issued its opinion and order

disposing of Stringer’s complaint on summary judgment. We thus conclude that the district court’s

dismissal of Stringer’s motion as moot was not an abuse of discretion. S ee HC Gun & Knife Shows,

Inc. v. City of Houston , 201 F.3d 544, 549 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Presidential Documents 77605

Executive Order 13367 of December 21, 2004

United States-Mexico Border Health Commission 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International 

Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) (the ‘‘Act’’), and having found 

that the United States participates in the United States-Mexico Border Health 

Commission (USMBHC) pursuant to the United-States Mexico Border Health 

Commission Act, Public Law 103–400 (22 U.S.C. 290n et seq.), I hereby 

designate the USMBHC as a public international organization for purposes 

of the International Organizations Immunities Act. I hereby extend to members and employees of the Mexican Section of the USMBHC the same 

privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments 

with regard to the laws regulating entry into and departure from the United 

States as provided for in section 7(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 288d(a)). No 

other privileges, exemptions, or immunities of the Act are extended under 

this order. 

This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect privileges, exemptions, or immunities that the USMBHC otherwise may have acquired or 

[FR Doc. 04–28404

Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

may acquire by law.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 21, 2004. 

W