alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH M. SUTTON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JOHN GAY,Respondent - Appellee. No. 07-36019 D.C. No. CV-07-05148-RBL
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2011 ** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Kenneth M. Sutton petitions for habeas corpus relief after being convicted of burglary and assault and receiving a 152-month sentence. His petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See Furman v. Wood , 190 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). The district court denied Sutton’s petition. 

# FILED
MAR 14 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 We review de novo, and affirm. See Beardslee v. Woodford , 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir. 2004). Sutton was not denied a “meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense” when the trial court refused to permit his cousin to testify. Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). “A defendant has no right . . . to present irrelevant evidence,” and the excluded te stimony was not relevant because it would have established only that the victim was also assaulted by another person days after the assault for which Sutton was charged. Wood v. State of Alaska , 957 F.2d 1544, 1549 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319, 326- 27 (2006). The trial court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing two weapon enhancements to Sutton’s sentence based on his use of the same deadly weapon against the same victim during the commission of the separate crimes of burglary and assault. “With respect to cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.” Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 366 (1983). In determining whether the Washington state legislature intended courts to impose tw o weapon enhancements in cases like this one, we are bound to accept the Washington courts’ construction of that state’s3 statutes. See id. at 368. The Washington Supreme Court explicitly stated, in rejecting Sutton’s request for review, that the statute at issue “required” the trial court “to impose two consecutive deadly weapon enhancements.” See also State v. Huested , 74 P.3d 672, 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (“This statute unambiguously shows legislative intent to impose two enhancements based on a single act of possessing a weapon, where there are two offe nses eligible for an enhancement.”). Accordingly, there was no double jeopardy violation. AFFIRMED.
#### § 58.153 Dry storage.

The product should be stored at least 18 inches from the wall in aisles, rows, or sections and lots, in such a manner as to be orderly and easily accessible for inspection. Rooms should be cleaned regularly. It is recommended that dunnage or pallets be used when practical. Care shall be taken in the storage of any other product foreign to dairy products in the same room, in order to prevent impairment or damage to the dairy product from mold, absorbed odors, or vermin or insect infestation. Control of humidity and temperature shall be maintained at all times, consistent with good commercial practices, to prevent conditions detrimental to the product and container.
#### New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp., Appellant, v James H. Northrop, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 29, 1979, as, on plaintiff’s motion, *inter alia,*for summary judgment and to dismiss the counterclaims of defendant James H. Northrop, Inc., (1) severed but refused to dismiss said defendant’s counterclaims after granting the plaintiff summary judgment on its foreclosure action, (2) stayed the actual sale of the premises pending a determination of the counterclaims and (3) refused to strike said defendant’s notice to take oral depositions. Order modified, on *578the law, by deleting the second and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision severing only the first counterclaim of defendant James H. Northrop, Inc., and dismissing said defendant’s second and third counterclaims. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The second and third counterclaims of defendant James H. Northrop, Inc. (Northrop) should have been dismissed *by*Special Term, the second because a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (see *Empire State Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Commercial Union Ins. Co.,*67 AD2d 676; *Goldman v Garofalo, 59*AD2d 933), and the third because a cause of action for indemnification was premature (see *Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York,*57 AD2d 237, affd 44 NY2d 49). Moreover, in the absence of any demonstrable prejudice, Special Term abused its discretion in staying the foreclosure sale pending the disposition of Northrop’s distinct and separable counterclaims, only one of which (the one sounding in trespass) now remains (see *Stigwood Organisation v Devon Co.,*44 NY2d 922; *Sunbeam Corp. v Morris Distr. Co., 55*AD2d 722, mot for lv to app den 41 NY2d 802; *Whirlpool Corp. v Oreck Corp.,*48 AD2d 817; *Petikas v Ateo Mar. Corp.,*31 AD2d 907). However, we agree that Northrop’s first counterclaim was properly severed, as the record is neither clear nor conclusive that Northrop had no possessory rights in the property claimed to have been the subject of the trespass at the time thereof (see *Allied 31st Ave. Corp. v City of New York,*27 AD2d 948; see, also, *Federal Nat. Mtge. Assn. v Palmer,*53 AD2d 601). In addition, Northrop has pleaded prima facie an injury to property for which it seeks monetary compensation, and whether the nature of that cause of action properly sounds in trespass, conversion or some other form of legal relief, it is our belief that given the liberalization of pleadings under the CPLR, a dismissal at this stage of the proceedings would be inappropriate (see *Foley v DAgostino,*21 AD2d 60, 64-66; see, generally, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:24, pp 30-31). We have considered the other points raised on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DOUGERA ILLARION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv563-MW/MAF

RODOLPHE LAFONTANT, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 16. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 16, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are 

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.” The 

Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 28, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
# L_2013343EN.01000701.xml

| 19.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 343/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 343/7

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1361/2013

of 17 December 2013

implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

| (2) | Following the judgment of 28 November 2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-280/12 P, Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN and Fulmen are not included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the judgment of 28 November 2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-280/12 P, Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN and Fulmen are not included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2).

| (3) | Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN and Fulmen should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN and Fulmen should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 17 December 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. ŠADŽIUS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

2

---

ANNEX

Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Part I(A), entry no 9 concerning 'Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN' is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Part I(A), entry no 9 concerning 'Fereydoun MAHMOUDIAN' is deleted;

| (2) | in Part I(B), entry no 13 concerning 'Fulmen' is deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in Part I(B), entry no 13 concerning 'Fulmen' is deleted.

---
#### § 51.2076 U.S. No. 1 Mixed.

“U.S. No. 1 Mixed” consists of almonds in the shell which meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade, except that two or more varieties of sweet almonds are mixed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50858 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ENRIQUE BUSTILLOS

- TRILLOS, also known as Valentine Bustillos

- Trillo , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 29

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Enrique Bustillos

- Trillos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bustillos

- Trillos h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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 April 2 1 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50858 Document: 00513013585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015No. 14

- 50858

issue for appellate review. Accordingl y, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-50858 Document: 00513013585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee 
on Disability Compensation will meet on December 13-14, 2010, at the 
St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. 
to 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review 
relevant information relating to the nature and character of 
disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an 
ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and 
give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of 
Veterans relating to disability compensation.
    The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to 
compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other 
VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public 
comments in the afternoon each day. Public comments will be limited to 
three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before 
the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their 
comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official 
meeting record.
    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review 
to Robert Watkins, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation and Pension 
Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20420 or e-mail at Robert.Watkins2@va,gov. Any member of the public 
wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should 
contact Mr. Watkins at (202) 461-9214.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Vivian Drake,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29745 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dominic Cicerale, Appellant.

Order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated June 13,1966, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and this *coram nobis*proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of (a) holding a hearing before a Judge other than the one who accepted the plea of guilty, at which the proofs of the parties, including the testimony of the attorney who appeared for defendant at the time defendant pleaded guilty shall be adduced and (b) making a determination *de novo,*on the basis of all the proof submitted upon the hearing. Under all the circumstances, a hearing should be accorded defendant as to whether he was induced to plead guilty by a representation of the trial court that a lesser sentence would be imposed than defendant ultimately received. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### § 58.229 Filler and packaging equipment.

All filling and packaging equipment shall be of sanitary construction and all parts, including valves and filler heads accessible for cleaning. New or replacement equipment should comply with the 3-A Sanitary Standards for equipment for Packaging Dry Milk and Dry Milk Products.
# L_2014111EN.01009602.xml

| 15.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 111/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 111/96

---

Corrigendum to the Definitive adoption of the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2014

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 51 of 20 February 2014
  )

On pages I/171 to I/173:

for:

‘Differentiated appropriations’,

read:

‘Non-differentiated appropriations’;

on page I/267, Chapter 1 2, in the remarks:

for:

‘A standard abatement of 3,7 % ...’,

read:

‘A standard abatement of 3 % ...’;

on pages I/484 to I/493:

for:

‘Differentiated appropriations’,

read:

‘Non-differentiated appropriations’;

on pages I/528 to I/530 with the exception of Items 2 2 3 8 and 2 2 3 9:

for:

‘Differentiated appropriations’,

read:

‘Non-differentiated appropriations’.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Ronald W.
Hovsepian, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * *



|                       
|-----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|                       
|/s/ RONALD W. HOVSEPIAN
|Ronald W. Hovsepian    
|                       
|Date: September 8, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2543 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2543

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-dimethyl-hydantoin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-dimethyl-hydantoin.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3-DIBROMO-5-DIMETHYL-HYDANTOIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.67      1,3-Dibromo-5-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         dimethyl-                                                          31/2009
                         hydantoin (CAS
                         No. 77-48-5)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.21.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* 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 v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41672 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE VICTOR GARCIA-ZAPATA, also known as Jose Garcia-Zapata, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:06-CR-623-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Victor Garcia-Zapata (Garcia) preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post- Booker ** rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker . Garcia concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences forNo. 06-41672 -2- reasonableness. Garcia also raises arguments that are foreclosed 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 not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 5001.7 Agency's special initiatives.

Applicants submitting applications that support the implementation of strategic or special initiatives are encouraged to review the Agency's annual notice to determine if their projects are eligible for receiving priority for projects. These projects may also support the implementation of strategic economic development and community development plans on a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral basis in accordance with section 6401 of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334).
AQRV Air Quality Related ValueBACT Best Available Control Technology

BDT Bone Dry Tons

BTIJ British thermal units

CAA Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.]CBI Confidential Business InformationCEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring SystemCFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon Monoxide

•EPA U.S. Environmental flrotection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLM Federal Land Manager

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GAQM 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W- Guideline on Air Quality Models

GEP Good enineering practice

hp HorsepowerHRSG Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorkW kilowattm meterMMBTU Million British thermal unitsMW Megawatts of electrical power

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNLCD92 USGS 1992 National Land Cover 

- Nifràeñà*idiiiiiricóxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxideNO Oxides ofNitrogen (NO + NO2)NP National park

NSPS New Source performance Standards, 40 CFR part 60NSR New Source Review

PM Total particulate Matter

PM2,5 Partictilate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers Q.tm) in diameterPM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 micrometers (.tm) in diameter

ppb parts per billionppm aarts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTE potential to emit

RBLC U.S. EPA RACT/BACT/LAER Information Clearinghouse

SCAQMD Shasta County Air Quality Management District
USGSWA

United States Geological Survey

Wilderness Area

4

, -:u..

:.

• •

.4•

_: •
52.215-8 Order of Precedence-Uniform Contract Format.       As prescribed in 15.209(h), insert the following clause:          Order of Precedence-uniform Contract Format (Oct 1997)          Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:                                       (a) 						            The Schedule (excluding the specifications).                                          (b) 						            Representations and other instructions.                                          (c) 						            Contract clauses.                                          (d) 						            Other documents, exhibits, and attachments.                                          (e) 						            The specifications.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
#### § 58.55 Facilities for keeping quality samples.

Each applicant granted authority, as aforesaid, to package product with official identification shall provide and maintain suitable equipment for the purpose of incubating samples of product.