alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge

1

for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1157

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

Jamal Suliman Muhtaseb, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 5, 1997

 Filed: May 9, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jamal Muhtaseb pleaded guilty to failing to surrender for service of

his sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2). At sentencing, the

district court denied Muhtaseb's motion for a downward departure under

1

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (1995), and sentenced Muhtaseb

to 21 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Muhtaseb

appeals, arguing that the district court erred by denying the departure

motion. We affirm.

A court may depart from the applicable Guidelines range "if the court

finds 'that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a

kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into
-2-

consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines

that should result in a sentence different from that described.'" U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. §

3553(b)). If a district court's refusal to depart was an exercise of

discretion, we cannot review the ruling; if, however, the district court

concluded it lacked the authority to depart, we may review the ruling. See

United States v. Jenkins, 78 F.3d 1283, 1290 (8th Cir. 1996); United States

v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 817 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 878 (1994).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude the district court was clearly

aware of its authority to depart. Thus, its refusal to do so was an

unreviewable exercise of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 29.3562 Undried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco which has not been air-dried or steam-dried.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2502 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 

for certain property under construction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2013 

Mr. THOMPSON of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the energy credit for certain property under construction. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renewable Energy 

5 Parity Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR CERTAIN 

7 PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 

8 (a) SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY.—Paragraphs 

9 (2)(A)(i)(II) and (3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) of the Internal 

10 Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ‘‘peVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:14 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2502.IH H2502

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2502 IH

1 riods ending’’ and inserting ‘‘property the construction of 

2 which begins’’. 

3 (b) QUALIFIED FUEL CELL PROPERTY.—Section 

4 48(c)(1)(D) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘for any 

5 period after December 31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘the con6 struction of which does not begin before January 1, 

7 2017’’. 

8 (c) QUALIFIED MICROTURBINE PROPERTY.—Section 

9 48(c)(2)(D) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘for any 

10 period after December 31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘the con11 struction of which does not begin before January 1, 

12 2017’’. 

13 (d) COMBINED HEAT AND POWER SYSTEM PROP14 ERTY.—Section 48(c)(3)(A)(iv) of such Code is amended 

15 by striking ‘‘which is placed in service’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘construction of which begins’’. 

17 (e) QUALIFIED SMALL WIND ENERGY PROPERTY.— 

18 Section 48(c)(4)(C) of such Code is amended by striking 

19 ‘‘for any period after December 31, 2016’’ and inserting 

20 ‘‘the construction of which does not begin before January 

21 1, 2017’’. 

22 (f) THERMAL ENERGY PROPERTY.—Section 

23 48(a)(3)(A)(vii) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘pe24 riods ending’’ and inserting ‘‘property the construction of 

25 which begins’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2502 IH

1 (g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
149 So.2d 768

#### Joseph C. DESHOTELS v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 46569.

Feb. 18, 1963.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
§ 3201.142 Rugs and floor mats. ( a ) *Definition.* Rugs or floor mats are floor coverings that are used for decorative or ergonomic purposes and that are not attached to the floor. This category includes items such as area rugs, rug runners, chair mats, and bathroom and kitchen mats. This category excludes products composed of woven, tufted, or knitted fiber and a backing system because these products fall under the “Carpets” product category.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 23 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased rugs and floor mats. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased rugs and floor mats.
( d ) *Determining overlap with a designated product category in the EPA's CPG program.* Qualifying products within this product category may overlap with the EPA's CPG-designated recovered content product category of Miscellaneous Products: Mats. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information on the BioPreferred Program's website about the intended uses of the product, information on whether the product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether a qualifying biobased product overlaps with the EPA's CPG-designated product category of Miscellaneous Products: Mats and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note 1 to Paragraph ( d
):
Rugs and floor mats within this designated product category can compete with similar rugs or floor mats with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CPG-designated Miscellaneous Products: Mats containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.17.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
Fourth Department,

October, 1980

(October 24, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Edward H. Parry, Defendant

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: we conclude that defendant has not on this application met his burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Oneida County (CPL 230.20, subd 2). If it develops during the *voir dire*that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See *People v Di Piazza,*24 NY2d 342; *People v Hatch,*46 AD2d 721; *People v Sekou,*45 AD2d 982, app dsmd 35 NY2d 844.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50378

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO VASQUEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Antonio

Vasquez-Cuevas, also known as Guadalupe Esparza-Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1863-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Antonio VasquezSanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Murillo-Lopez, 444 F.3d 337, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2006), which held

that a California conviction for burglary of an inhabited

dwelling house was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling and

therefore was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and
No. 05-50378

-2-

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### The State ex rel. Eaton Corporation, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio; Roig, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 330.]

(No. 96-2761

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy, Aubrey B. Willacy*and *M. Scott Young,*for appellee.

*Garson & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Grace A. Szubski,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
# L_2021429EN.01019201.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 429/192 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 429/192

---

Corrigendum to Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/2059 of 23 November 2021 on the reconfirmation of the authorisation of the European Union military operation in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/5/2021)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 422 of 26 November 2021
  )

On page 3, signature:

for:

‘For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
  ’,

read:

‘For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

D. PRONK
  ’.

---
§ 3201.24 Graffiti and grease removers. ( a ) *Definition.* Industrial solvent products formulated to remove automotive, industrial, or kitchen soils and oils, including grease, paint, and other coatings, from hard surfaces.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a biobased content of at least 34 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to be diluted before use, the biobased content of the remover must be determined before dilution.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than May 14, 2009, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying graffiti and grease removers. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased graffiti and grease removers.
[73 FR 27953, May 14, 2008]
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00113-CV 

GERALD E. GILBERT, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

ELLEN S. COPELAND, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 223rd District Court 

Gray County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 38,591, Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding 

 

July 9, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Gerald E. Gilbert, an inmate proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the 

trial court’s judgment dismissing his claims against appellee, Ellen S. Copeland, pursuant 

to chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction.

The trial court signed the Final Judgment on March 14, 2017. Because Gilbert did 

not file any post-judgment motions extending the notice of appeal deadline, his notice of 

appeal was due within thirty days after the judgment was signed, by April 13, 2017. See
2

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a) (A notice of appeal is due within thirty days after a judgment is 

signed or within ninety days if a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, 

motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed.). 

Gilbert did not file a notice of appeal until a year later, on April 9, 2018.

A timely-filed notice of appeal is required to invoke this Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

616-17 (Tex. 1997). By letter dated May 28, 2019, we notified Gilbert that his notice of 

appeal appeared to have been filed untimely and directed him to file a response showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal or the appeal would be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. Gilbert filed a response, a Motion to Establish Jurisdiction of Court of 

Appeals, and a Motion to Extend Post-Judgment Deadline. In his response and motions, 

Gilbert claims that he mailed several post-judgment motions, including a “motion for 

reconsideration,” to the district clerk for filing on March 24, 2017, but that the motions

were returned to him unfiled. Assuming, for argument’s sake, that Gilbert had timely filed 

a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal deadline would have been extended by ninety 

days to June 12, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Therefore, Gilbert’s notice of appeal 

filed on April 9, 2018, would still be untimely.

Because Gilbert’s late notice of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, 

we deny his motions and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

Per Curiam
S. 2320

One Hundred Ninth 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 six

An Act

To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other

purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM.

Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘for a 1-time only obligation and

expenditure’’; (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘$500,000,000 for fiscal

year 2006’’; and (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$750,000,000 for fiscal year 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘$500,000,000 for fiscal

year 2006’’;

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—None of the funds made available under this

section may be used for the planning and administering described

in section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).’’; and

(4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),

by striking ‘‘September 30, 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘September

30, 2006’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Youm Huh, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Youm Huh                         
|Youm Huh                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|November 14, 2005                    



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INTEL CORPORATION, 

Appellant

v.

ALACRITECH, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2022-2049

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01410.

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

DELL, INC., 

Appellant

v.

ALACRITECH, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2022-2094

______________________

Case: 22-2049 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2023
2 DELL, INC. v. ALACRITECH, INC.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01410.

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

CAVIUM, LLC,

Appellant

v.

ALACRITECH, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2022-2103

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-

01410, IPR2017-01737, IPR2018-00339.

______________________

ON MOTION AND ON STIPULATION

______________________

O R D E R

On October 2, 2023, Cavium, LLC and Alacritech, Inc. 

stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their dispute only.

On October 24, 2023, Intel Corporation and Alacritech, 

Inc. moved to voluntarily dismiss their dispute only.

The parties, having so agreed, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Appeal No. 2022-2103 is dismissed under Fed. R. 

App. P. 42(b), with each side to bear their own costs.

(2) Appeal No. 2022-2049 is dismissed under Fed. R. 

App. P. 42(b), with each side to bear their own costs.

Case: 22-2049 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2023
DELL, INC. v. ALACRITECH, INC. 3

(3) Within three business days, Dell, Inc. and Alacritech, Inc. shall file responses to the notice of oral argument in Appeal No. 22-2094.

(4) The official captions and short caption, as modified, 

are reflected in this order.

October 27, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to Appeal Nos. 2022-

2049 and 2022-2103 only): October 27, 2023.

Case: 22-2049 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2023
#### In the Matter of Wade C., Respondent, v Rachael D., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, entered April 15, 1980, as amended by an order of the same court, entered May 5,1980, which, *inter alia,*dismissed respondent’s cross petition in a child custody proceeding. Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to obtain the custody of his two infant children following the death of his wife. However, before the return date, he executed a surrender instrument pursuant to section 384 of the Social Services Law. Respondent, the children’s maternal grandmother, filed a cross petition seeking the same relief and now appeals from the dismissal of her application. Since respondent was initially appointed the guardian of their person and property and the children began living with her immediately after their mother’s demise, Family Court should not have dismissed her petition without a hearing into their best interests (see *Matter of Gomez v Lozado,*40 NY2d 839; *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543) particularly when, as here, it did not appear that petitioner had guardianship or custody. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed respondent’s cross petition, matter remitted to the Family Court of Chemung County for further proceedings, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2241 

For the relief of Carmen Shahrzad Kulcsar. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Carmen Shahrzad Kulcsar. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 

5 order, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Carmen Shahrzad Kulcsar 

7 shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to the 

8 United States for permanent residence as of the date of 

9 enactment of this Act upon the payment of the required 

10 visa fees. 
2 

•S 2241 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

2 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Carmen 

3 Shahrzad Kulcsar under section 1, the Secretary of State 

4 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1 the total 

5 number of immigrant visas available during the current 

6 fiscal year to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

7 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)). 

Æ