alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ-URENA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-50237

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02442-JM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018** 

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JAN 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gonzalez-Urena argues that his prior conviction under California Penal

Code § 215 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, the district court erred in

applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015). This

claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 215 is categorically a “crime of violence” for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2). 

As Gonzalez-Urena acknowledges, his argument that Descamps v. United

States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), is clearly irreconcilable with Velasquez-Bosque or

with the case on which it relies, United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893

(9th Cir. 2008), is also foreclosed. See United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d

729, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that Descamps “did not impliedly

abrogate Becerril-Lopez”).

We decline Gonzalez-Urena’s invitation to revisit the holdings of VelasquezBosque and Becerril-Lopez because his challenge to those holdings relies on “no

change in the relevant statutes or regulations, nor in any governing authority.”

United States v. Ramos-Medina, 706 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2013). “Absent such

a change, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding

precedent established by a published opinion.” Id. at 938-39.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50237
Functional Statements > Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

-  OPEPD ​Introduction​

**Organization Charts**

- Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Organization Chart    (61KB PDF)

OPEPD Delegations of Authority may be found athttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/delegations/opepd.html
242.7204 Contract clause. Use the clause at 252.242-7004, Material Management and Accounting System, in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold that are not for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services and— ( a ) Are not awarded to small businesses, educational institutions, or nonprofit organizations; and
( b ) Are either— ( 1 ) Cost-reimbursement contracts; or
( 2 ) Fixed-price contracts with progress payments made on the basis of costs incurred by the contractor as work progresses under the contract.
[65 FR 77833, Dec. 13, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 6588, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ulysses Smalls, Appellant.

Judgment convicting defendant, after trial, of robbery in the first degree, unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial ordered, The complainant, the only witness to the robbery, in addition to identifying defendant at trial, was properly permitted to testify of his identification of defendant on a prior occasion (Code Crim, Pro., § 393-b). However, since the complainant’s testimony in that respect was not attacked ás a “recent contrivance”, it Was reversible error to admit, over objection, the testimony of the detective-Substantiating the prior identification *(People*v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471). Furthermore, it Was also error for the Court to receive, despite defendant’s Objection, testimony of an admission made by the codefendant without an accompanying instruction that it was not binding upon defendant *(People*v. Marshall, 306 N. Y. 223; *People*v. *Vaccaro,*288 N. Y. 170). Nor wás an appropriate limiting instruction given to the jury in the court’s charge. The failure to give such instruction was aggravated by the references made to the COdefendant’s admission, both by the prosecutor in his opening remarks (see *People*v. *Lombard,*4 A D 2d 666), and by the court' in its charge to the jury (see *People*v. *Marshall, supra.)*In the circumstances a new trial is required. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
# C_2017174EN.01000102.xml

| 1.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7864 — Trelleborg/ČGS Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 174/02)

On 4 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7864. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7864. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### 252.235-7003 Frequency Authorization.

*Basic.* As prescribed in 234.7101(b) and (b)(1), use the following clause:

# Frequency Authorization—Basic (MAR 2014)

(a) The Contractor shall obtain authorization for radio frequencies required in support of this contract.

(b) For any experimental, developmental, or operational equipment for which the appropriate frequency allocation has not been made, the Contractor shall provide the technical operating characteristics of the proposed electromagnetic radiating device to the Contracting Officer during the initial planning, experimental, or developmental phase of contract performance.

(c) The Contracting Officer shall furnish the procedures for obtaining radio frequency authorization.

(d) The Contractor shall include this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts requiring the development, production, construction, testing, or operation of a device for which a radio frequency authorization is required.

(End of clause)

*Alternate I.* As prescribed in 234.072(b) and (b)(2), use the following clause, which uses a different paragraph (c) than the basic clause:

# Frequency Authorization—Alternate I (MAR 2014)

(a) The Contractor shall obtain authorization for radio frequencies required in support of this contract.

(b) For any experimental, developmental, or operational equipment for which the appropriate frequency allocation has not been made, the Contractor shall provide the technical operating characteristics of the proposed electromagnetic radiating device to the Contracting Officer during the initial planning, experimental, or developmental phase of contract performance.

(c) The Contractor shall use DD Form 1494, Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation, to obtain radio frequency authorization.

(d) The Contractor shall include this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts requiring the development, production, construction, testing, or operation of a device for which a radio frequency authorization is required.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 73 FR 42279, July 21, 2008; 79 FR 17448, Mar. 28, 2014; 80 FR 36900, June 26, 2015; 86 FR 27278, May 20, 2021]
#### 227.7007 Notification and disclosure to claimants.

When a claim is denied, the Department responsible for the administrative determination of the claim shall so notify the claimant or his authorized representative and provide the claimant a reasonable rationale of the basis for denying the claim. Disclosure of information or the rationale referred to above shall be subject to applicable statutes, regulations, and directives pertaining to security, access to official records, and the rights of others.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 182 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 182

         Designating May 2017 as ``Melanoma Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2017

   Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Designating May 2017 as ``Melanoma Awareness Month''.

Whereas, as of May 2017, there are nearly 1,000,000 people living with melanoma 
        in the United States;
Whereas over 160,000 people of the United States will be diagnosed with melanoma 
        in 2017;
Whereas melanoma is the second-most commonly diagnosed cancer in young adults;
Whereas approximately 90 percent of cases of melanoma can be traced to exposure 
        to ultraviolet rays;
Whereas Congress enacted the Sunscreen Innovation Act (Public Law 113-195) to 
        help bring new, safe sunscreens to the market;
Whereas increasing intermittent sun exposure in childhood and throughout the 
        lifetime of a person is associated with an increased risk of squamous 
        cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and melanoma;
Whereas 1 blistering sunburn during childhood or adolescence can nearly double 
        the chance that a person develops melanoma later in life, while 5 or 
        more blistering sunburns in late adolescence increases the risk of--

    (1) melanoma by 80 percent; and

    (2) nonmelanoma by 68 percent; and

Whereas research shows that wearing sunscreen and taking other preventive 
        measures can prevent sunburn and reduce the risk of skin cancer and 
        premature aging: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates May 2017 as ``Melanoma Awareness Month'';
            (2) supports the goals and ideals of Melanoma Awareness 
        Month;
            (3) continues to support research for the prevention, 
        detection, and treatment of, and a cure for, melanoma; and
            (4) supports efforts to promote awareness of, and education 
        on, sunsafe behaviors, including the use of sunscreen and sun-
        protective clothing.
                                 <all>
```
#### 208.7002-2 Requiring department responsibilities.

See PGI 208.7002-2 for the requiring department's responsibilities.

[71 FR 39004, July 11, 2006]
#### 23.108 Required Environmental Protection Agency purchasing programs.

In accordance with 23.104(c), contracting officers shall, after meeting statutory purchasing program requirements in 23.107, purchase to the maximum extent practicable products and services that meet EPA purchasing program requirements described in 23.108-1 through 23.108-3.
#### 235.008 Evaluation for award.

See 209.570 for limitations on the award of contracts to contractors acting as lead system integrators.

[73 FR 1825, Jan. 10, 2008]
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, L.L.C. 

1717PENNSYLVANIAAVE.,N.W., 12THFLOOR 

WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 

TEL: (202) 659-6600 

FAX: (202) 659-6699 

June 19, 2014 

Via regulations.gov and email 

Robert Finamore 

Division Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing 

Brett Kruger 

Acting Division Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

ZUCKERT SCOUTT & RA.SENBERGER L.L.P. 

888 SEVENTEENTH ST., N.W., SUITE 700 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 

TELE: (202) 298-8660 

FAX: (202) 342-0683 

Re: Joint Application of China Eastern Airlines Corporation Ltd. and 

Virgin America Inc.; Dockets OST-2014-0107 and OST-2014-0108. 

Dear Messrs. Finamore and Kruger: 

We have polled the air carrier representatives on the attached service list regarding the 

above-captioned Application and received no objections. Accordingly, we respectfully request 

expedited consideration of this Application. 

Very truly yours, 

Counsel for Counsel for 

China Eastern Airlines Corporation Ltd. Virgin America Inc. 

cc: All parties on attached service list 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing letter to be served, this 19th day of June, 

2014, via email transmission, on the following persons: 

francis.heil@aa.com 

howard.kass@aa.com 

robert. wirick@aa.com 

sascha. vanderbellen@delta.com 

sametta.c.bamett@delta.com 

sllunsford@fedex.com 

sharon.pasley@fedex.com 

gbleopard@fedex.com 

jhill@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines) 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

peter. beckett@polaraircargo.com 

dan. weiss@united.com 

gmutphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

urskr@state. gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot. gov 

brett.kruger@dot. gov 

j ohn.s.duncan@faa. gov 

info@airlineinfo.com 

Jola!o!:a:·
#### 253.303 Agency forms.

DoD forms are available at *https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/forms/.*

[86 FR 27278, May 20, 2021]
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4710 DATE 7/3/2012

CASE

TITLE

Smith vs. Astrue

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [4] is granted.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

     Plaintiff Ricky Smith moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full prepayment of filing

fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Smith to proceed in forma pauperisif

he is unable to pay the mandated court fees. Smith need not be penniless to proceed in forma

pauperis under § 1915(a)(1). See Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Instead, he is

eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if payment of the filing fee will prevent him from providing for

life’s necessities. See id. According to his financial affidavit, Smith is currently unemployed but was

employed from May 14, 2012 to May 16, 2012, earning $99.82. Smith does not own any real estate or

any additional items of personal property worth over $1,000, nor does he have more than $200 in

cash or in a checking or savings account. Smith has received $200.00 in food stamps over the past

twelve months. Smith lives at a Heartland Alliance apartment building, where he is provided with

shelter and food. Based on these facts, Smith’s financial affidavit sets forth his inability to pay the

mandated court fees.

     Also, looking to whether the case states a claim, as this court must, the complaint challenges a

ruling regarding the denial of social security benefits. An individual may challenge a review by the

Appeals Council of the U.S. Social Security Administration by bringing a civil action in a federal

district court with sixty days of the adverse determination. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); accord Sims v.

Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106‐107 (2000). In challenging the review, a lawsuit will be considered frivolous

if the petitioner “can make no rational argument in law or fact to support [his] claims for relief.”

Greathouse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 00 C 7661, 2000 WL 1847613 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2000) (citing

Jones v. Morris, 777 F.2d 1277, 1279 (7th Cir. 1985)). In the present case the Appeals Council

12C4710 Smith vs. Astrue Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

rendered its decision on April 19, 2012, and Smith timely commenced this action on June 13, 2012.

Smith contends that the finding that he is not disabled is not in accordance with the purpose or

intent of the Social Security Act, nor is it it supported by substantial evidence. Smith has therefore

adequately stated a cause of action to give rise to plausible entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

12C4710 Smith vs. Astrue Page 2 of 2
#### Kamila Ticha, Appellant, v OTB Jeans et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 126]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered May 24, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries by a videographer against sponsors of a dirt bike competition who had engaged plaintiffs employer to film the competition, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ president asked her to film *311a rider who was standing on the ramp on the other side of the field because he was wearing defendants’ apparel, and, while doing so, she was hit by another rider who lost control of his bike. Plaintiff argues that she did not assume the risk of filming the far-off rider because he could only be filmed from the spot where she was standing and she was acting under the “inherent compulsion” of a specific instruction from her superior. The argument is contradicted by plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she could not recall whether defendants’ president told her to film the rider from the particular spot where she stood or whether she decided herself to continue standing there (see *Maddox v City of New York,*66 NY2d 270, 279 [1985] [no basis to infer plaintiff acted under compulsion of unspoken order]). Even if plaintiff did recall an express order, there is no evidence that she complained to defendants’ president about any danger or that he directed her to continue standing where she was despite dangers known by or communicated to him *(see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*73 NY2d 650, 659 [1989]; *Bereswill v National Basketball Assn.,*279 AD2d 292 [2001]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### 1215.603 General.

DOT will not pay any costs associated with the preparation of unsolicited proposals. Proposals that do not meet the definition and applicable content and marking requirements of FAR subpart 15.6 will not be considered under any circumstances and will be returned to the submitter.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31033 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaint iffAppellee,

versus JOSEPH CORNELIUS YOUNG, III, DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-60022-5

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

March 9, 2001 Before JOLLY, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joseph Cornelius Young, III, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Young was notified of counsel’s motion and brief, and he has filed a pro se response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Young’s response shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Consequently, counsel’s 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.No. 00-31033 -2-
16.403-1 Fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts. ( a ) *Description.* A fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract specifies a target cost, a target profit, a price ceiling (but not a profit ceiling or floor), and a profit adjustment formula. These elements are all negotiated at the outset. The price ceiling is the maximum that may be paid to the contractor, except for any adjustment under other contract clauses. When the contractor completes performance, the parties negotiate the final cost, and the final price is established by applying the formula. When the final cost is less than the target cost, application of the formula results in a final profit greater than the target profit; conversely, when final cost is more than target cost, application of the formula results in a final profit less than the target profit, or even a net loss. If the final negotiated cost exceeds the price ceiling, the contractor absorbs the difference as a loss. Because the profit varies inversely with the cost, this contract type provides a positive, calculable profit incentive for the contractor to control costs.
( b ) *Application.* A fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract is appropriate when the parties can negotiate at the outset a firm target cost, target profit, and profit adjustment formula that will provide a fair and reasonable incentive and a ceiling that provides for the contractor to assume an appropriate share of the risk. When the contractor assumes a considerable or major share of the cost responsibility under the adjustment formula, the target profit should reflect this responsibility.
( c ) *Limitations.* This contract type may be used only when— ( 1 ) The contractor's accounting system is adequate for providing data to support negotiation of final cost and incentive price revision; and
( 2 ) Adequate cost or pricing information for establishing reasonable firm targets is available at the time of initial contract negotiation.
( d ) *Contract Schedule.* The contracting officer shall specify in the contract Schedule the target cost, target profit, and target price for each item subject to incentive price revision.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 64785, Dec. 15, 1994]
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-45101) of International Lease Finance Corporation and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 19, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of International Lease Finance
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Century City,
Los Angeles, California
March 9, 1998
#### Herman Veeder, Respondent, *v.*William Mudgett et al., Appellants.

(Argued. October 16, 1883 ;

decided October 26, 1883.)

*George F. Yeoman*for appellants.

*Edward C. James*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.