alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy CANCELLARE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30020.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*407Submitted July 9, 2007 *.

Filed July 20, 2007.

USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John P. Rhodes, Esq., FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tracy Cancellare appeals from her 51-month sentence following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Wright,*373 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Cancellare contends that the district court abused its discretion by applying the two-level “vulnerable victim” enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b)(l). We disagree. Because the victim was an 80 year-old widower, who was repeatedly solicited for payments over the course of the six-month fraudulent enterprise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Randall,*162 F.3d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that the enhancement is appropriate “when a defendant’s activities are directed towards those in need of greater societal protection,” such as when defendant targets victim with track record of falling for fraudulent schemes).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 1 of 1

ICR Change Worksheet

1. I dentification of the Information Collection

Title: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use Exempt ion from the Phaseout of Methyl

Bromide (renewal)

EPA Number: 2031.06

OMB Control Number : 2060

- 0482

2. Description of the change in requirements

EPA took comment in the proposed rule on removing all of the remaining references to critical stock allowances in 40 CFR Part 82. EPA believes these provisions are no longer necessary if the agency is not allocating separate cr itical stock allowances. EPA received one comment and it was in support of this action. Specifically as it relates to reporting and recordkeeping , this final rule removes requirements related to critical stock allowances in 40

CFR 82.13 as follows:

82.13 (f) (3)

- Quarterly reporting from producers of methyl bromide regarding the number of expended and unexpended critical stock allowances ;

82.13 (g) (4)

- Quarterly reporting from importers of methyl bromide regarding the number of expended and unexpended criti cal stock allowances ;

82.13(bb)(2)(iv)

- Annual reporting from distributors of methyl bromide regarding the number of expended and unexpended critical stock allowances ; and

82.13 (cc)(2)(iv)

- Annual reporting from third party applicators of methyl bromide regarding the number of expended and unexpended critical stock allowances

.

3. Description of the burden

There are two dozen companies that had received critical stock allowances under the critical use exemption program. Many of these companies have merged or have sold their stocks of methyl bromide and thus did not have critical stock allowances to report. At most, EPA estimates that ten companies may have their burden reduced by half an hour annually, for a

reduction of 5 hours total. This is negligible in comparison to the 3,258 hours detailed in the supporting statement. There is no change to the capital and operating costs, which remain at zero.
2006-0807.

#### Carter v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Berle Carter. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                                                                      |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries:                                                                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                                                                      | 
|Beijing Decision Education & Consulting Company Limited                               |  | PRC                          
|Beijing Judgment Education & Consulting Company Limited                               |  | PRC                          
|Beijing Hewstone Technology Company                                                   |  | PRC                          
|Beijing Pioneer Technology Company Limited                                            |  | PRC                          
|Beijing Boost Caring Education & Consulting Company Limited                           |  | PRC                          
|Beijing New Oriental Stars Education & Consulting Company Limited                     |  | PRC                          
|Elite Concept Holdings Limited                                                        |  | Hong Kong                    
|Winner Park Limited                                                                   |  | Hong Kong                    
|Smart Shine International Limited                                                     |  | Hong Kong                    
|                                                                                      | 
|Variable Interest Entities:                                                           |  |                              
|                                                                                      | 
|Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd. (New Oriental China)* |  | PRC                          



|* | New Oriental China is the immediate parent company of the following subsidiaries, all of which are incorporated in the PRC:
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 44 wholly owned subsidiaries and one 60% owned subsidiary that operate schools in China; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 31 wholly owned subsidiaries that operate New Orientals educational content, software and other technology development and distributions
business, online education business and overseas studies consulting business in China.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 3565.55 Participation loans.

Loans involving multiple lenders are eligible for a guarantee when one of the lenders is an approved lender and agrees to act as the lead lender with responsibility for the loan under the loan guarantee agreement.
#### Theresa Van Wallendael, Appellant, v. Lillie Abukoff, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made on reconsideration and dated May 25, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for a general preference granted. In our opinion, plaintiff’s application for reconsideration set forth facts sufficient to warrant a general preference. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6645

FRED WALKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:05-cv-03498-MBS) Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: November 8, 2007 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fred Walker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-199-AW-GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is one of the many frivolous pro se cases Christopher Jon Pergrossi has 

recently filed in this court. I have considered the magistrate judge’s omnibus order 

to show cause and report and recommendation. ECF No. 4. No objections were 

filed.* I agree with the magistrate judge that the action is frivolous and has wasted 

court resources. On the issue of sanctions, the judge in the first-filed case found it to 

be a close call but did not impose sanctions. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF 

No. 7. I will likewise not impose sanctions at this time.

The clerk will enter judgment that says, “This case is DISMISSED without 

leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” The clerk will close the file.

* In another of his cases, Pergrossi filed an objection to the omnibus Report 

and Recommendation. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF No. 6. Although he did 

not file that objection (or any objection) in this case, I have nonetheless considered 

de novo the issues raised in that objection. 

Case 1:20-cv-00199-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on October 5, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00199-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 2
# L_2013294EN.01003401.xml

| 6.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/34

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1096/2013

of 4 November 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Poulet des Cévennes / Chapon des Cévennes (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Poulet des Cévennes’ / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Poulet des Cévennes’ / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Poulet des Cévennes’ / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Poulet des Cévennes’ / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 November 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 33, 5.2.2013, p. 10.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat (and offal)

FRANCE

Poulet des Cévennes / Chapon des Cévennes (PGI)

---
# L_2021057EN.01008201.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 57/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 57/82

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/246

of 11 February 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Újfehértói meggy’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Újfehértói meggy’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Újfehértói meggy’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Újfehértói meggy’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Újfehértói meggy’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Újfehértói meggy’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 319, 28.9.2020, p. 15.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
#### SILVERMAN, Respondent, v. JACOBS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Louis Silverman against Edwin W. Jacobs, impleaded. N. Ballin, for appellant. G. M. Leventritt, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to amend on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Quipp Inc.
1995 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,251,020
<SECURITIES>                                 5,486,438
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,907,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (846,171)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,474,885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,382,946
<PP&E>                                       3,573,683
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,582,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,382,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,854,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,345
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,846,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,862,612
<SALES>                                     23,196,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,551,919
<CGS>                                       15,565,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,170,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,514,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,381,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,285,292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,096,228
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,096,228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.3
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.3
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr78/MCR

ALLAN FERNANDO ALVAREZ-PEREZ

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be 

accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed 

accordingly.

Dated: December 2, 2020.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00078-MCR Document 24 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr78/MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court=s internal use 

only and does not control. A copy of objections must be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. 

Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00078-MCR Document 24 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 5:93cr5040/LAC 

5:06cv7/LAC/MD

MELVIN MCPHERSON

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on January 20, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, the Recommendation is adopted as

the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 (doc. 144) is summarily DISMISSED as successive.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2006.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:93-cr-05040-LC Document 147 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1
#### John E. Doyle et al., Respondents, v Olin’s Leasing Corp. et al., *635Appellants.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 14, 1978 which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them on the issue of liability. Interlocutory judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In this case involving an accident between a motorcycle and an automobile, there was sufficient evidence to require that section 1141 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law be charged. Plaintiff John E. Doyle testified that he had his left turn signal on preparatory to making a left turn at an intersection some distance away. The signal was on for some five seconds prior to the accident. Defendant driver testified that Doyle had to have been making a left turn for the accident to have occurred. The court’s failure to include section 1141 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in its charge after a specific request from defense counsel was error. It removed an issue of great importance from the jury in what the court itself characterized as an "intersectional” accident. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 3 Filed 12/18/03 Page 8 of 8