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

No. 00-50728.

D.C. No. CR-00-00185-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 14, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Everado Alvarez-Robles appeals the judgment entered by the district court following his guilty plea to importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alvarez-Robles contends that 21 U.S.C. § 960, the statute under which he was convicted, is unconstitutional after *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that § 960 is not facially unconstitutional).1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Alvarez-Robles further contends that the government was required to prove that he knowingly imported 42 kilograms of cocaine. Alvarez-Robles raises this contention for the first time in his reply brief, failing to properly present the claim. *See United States v. Wright,*215 F.3d 1020, 1030 n. 3 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 969, 121 S.Ct. 406, 148 *884L.Ed.2d 313 (2000). Nonetheless, this contention is foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting appellant’s argument that the government was required to prove that he knew the type and amount of the imported controlled substance).
#### In re AMERIFIT, INC.

No. 01-1062.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2001.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1242 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1242

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
    to repeal the provisions relating to the use of asphalt payment 
                      containing recycled rubber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 1995

Ms. Pryce (for herself, Mr. Parker, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Linder, Mr. Baker 
of California, and Mr. Oxley) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
    to repeal the provisions relating to the use of asphalt payment 
                      containing recycled rubber.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Mandates Repeal Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF USE OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONTAINING RECYCLED RUBBER.

    Section 1038(d) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 105 Stat. 1987-1990) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
§ 31.3121(b)(16)-1 Services performed under share-farming arrangement. ( a ) The term “employment” does not include services performed by an individual under an arrangement with the owner or tenant of land pursuant to which— ( 1 ) Such individual undertakes to produce agricultural or horticultural commodities (including livestock, bees, poultry, and fur-bearing animals and wildlife) on such land,
( 2 ) The agricultural or horticultural commodities produced by such individual, or the proceeds therefrom, are to be divided between such individual and such owner or tenant, and
( 3 ) The amount of such individual's share depends on the amount of the agricultural or horticultural commodities produced. For purposes of this exception, the arrangement pursuant to which the individual's services are performed must meet the specified statutory conditions.
( b ) If the arrangement between the parties provides that the individual who undertakes to produce a crop or livestock is to be compensated at a specified rate of pay or is to receive a fixed sum of money or a stipulated quantity of the commodities to be produced, without regard to the amount actually produced, as distinguished from a proportionate share of the crop or livestock, or the proceeds therefrom, the services performed by such individual in the production of such crop or livestock is not within the exception.
( c ) For provisions relating to the status, under the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, of the services which are excepted from “employment” under this section, see the regulations under section 1402(a) in Part 1 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).
[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8313, July 2, 1964]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo GAMA-BUENROSTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50763.

D.C. No. CR-00-01460-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Ricardo Gama-Buenrostro appeals his conviction and 12-month and 1-day sentence for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gama-Buenrostro first contends 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional. This argument is precluded by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960) and *United States v. Varelar-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952).

*307Gama-Buenrostro next contends 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 require the government to plead and prove his knowledge of the drug quantity and type. This argument is precluded by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DAVID L. ALFORD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 109725 Bobby R. McGee, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2017-00436-CCA-R3-ECN

___________________________________

The pro se petitioner, David L. Alford, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s 

judgment summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The State 

has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s position is 

well-taken and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed 

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY 

THOMAS, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

David L. Alford, Pro Se, Tiptonville, Tennessee.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant 

Attorney General; and Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State 

of Tennessee.

OPINION

On June 25, 2015, the petitioner pleaded guilty in Knox County Criminal 

Court to sale of less than .5 gram of cocaine, receiving a sentence of 5 years’ 

incarceration. On January 18, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error 

coram nobis alleging that a July 10, 2016 letter that he received from the District 

Attorney General concerning criminal charges brought against one of the officers 

involved in his case constituted newly discovered evidence that, had it been known at the 

time of trial, would have resulted in a different outcome relative to the petitioner’s guilty 

plea. The petitioner also asserted that the newly discovered evidence cast doubt on the 

voluntariness of his guilty plea. On February 10, 2017, the trial court summarily 

10/23/2017
- 2 -

dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner had failed to allege a colorable claim for 

coram nobis relief. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

judgment.

The State correctly asserts that the trial court’s summary dismissal should 

be affirmed because a writ of error coram nobis is not an available procedure to challenge 

a conviction arising from a guilty plea. Frazier v. State, 495 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Tenn. 

2016). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court 

pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

_________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WIT, JR., JUDGE
#### § 34.701 Responsibility for administration—Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program.

Treasury is responsible for awarding grants to the Gulf Coast States, which will use the amounts made available to award grants to nongovernmental entities and consortia in the Gulf Coast Region for the establishment of Centers of Excellence. Treasury will develop and apply policies and procedures consistent with this Act and Federal laws and policies on grants. Each Gulf Coast State entity issuing grants must establish and implement a program to monitor compliance with its subaward agreements.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 120

To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major league baseball.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major

league baseball.

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 ‘‘Baseball Fans and

5 Communities Protection Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR

7 LEAGUE BASEBALL IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EX8 TRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

9 The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended

10 by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 120 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 27. (a) If unilateral terms and conditions of

2 employment in restraint of trade or commerce are imposed

3 by any party that has been subject to an agreement be4 tween 2 or more major league baseball clubs and the labor

5 organization representing the players of major league

6 baseball, such unilateral imposition shall be subject to the

7 antitrust laws.

8 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a term or con9 dition imposed solely with respect to a professional base10 ball player who is a party to a uniform player contract

11 that is assigned, at the time the imposition described in

12 such subsection occurs, to a baseball club that is not a

13 major league professional baseball club.

14 ‘‘(c) This section shall not be construed to modify,

15 impair, or supersede the operation of—

16 ‘‘(1) the Act of September 30, 1961 (Public

17 Law 87–331; 15 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.), or

18 ‘‘(2) any Federal statute relating to labor

19 relations.

20 ‘‘(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘terms

21 and conditions’ does not include a strike or a lockout.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Caito, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 755]

*1136Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered September 24, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of felony driving while intoxicated.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). Because voir dire was not transcribed, we are unable to review the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror *(see People v Degondea,*256 AD2d 39, 40 [1998]; *People v Piermont,*180 AD2d 830 [1992], *lv denied*79 NY2d 1006 [1992]). We reject the further contentions of defendant that the court was required to question him before accepting defense counsel’s waiver of the transcription of voir dire *(see generally People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44, 49 [2003]), and that defense counsel’s waiver constituted ineffective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Snider,*2 AD3d 1452, 1453 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 634 [2004]).

Defendant failed to object to the court’s ultimate *Sandoval*ruling and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion *(see People v Brown,*16 AD3d 1102 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 760 [2005]; *People v Englert,*285 AD2d 987 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 655 [2001] ; *People v McAllister,*245 AD2d 184 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 894 [1998]). In any event, his contention is without merit. The court refused to allow any inquiry with respect to several convictions, allowed inquiry with respect to the facts and circumstances of five convictions and, with respect to the remaining convictions, limited the inquiry to whether defendant had been convicted of a crime in a certain month and year. The court’s ruling “balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion” *(McAllister,*245 AD2d at 184). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “there is no indication that the sentence imposed was ‘inflicted as punishment for insisting upon a trial’ ” *(People v Jurjens,*291 AD2d 839, 840 [2002] , *lv denied*98 NY2d 652 [2002]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
# L_2023188EN.01006001.xml

| 27.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 188/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 188/60

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive (EU) 2020/262 of 19 December 2019 laying down the general arrangements for excise duty

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 58 of 27 February 2020
  )

On page 33, Article 45(2):

for:

‘... set out in accordance with Article 6(9), unless a Member State has reasonable cause to suspect fraud or irregularity.’,

read:

‘... set out in accordance with Article 6(10), unless a Member State has reasonable cause to suspect fraud or irregularity.’.

---
www.gpo.gov

### §382. Irrigation projects under Reclamation Act

In carrying out any irrigation project which may be undertaken under the provisions of the Reclamation Act, and which may make possible, and provide for in connection with the reclamation of other lands, the irrigation of all or any part of the irrigable lands heretofore included in allotments made to Indians under section 334 of this title, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make such arrangement and agreement in reference thereto as said Secretary deems for the best interest of the Indians: *Provided*, That no lien or charge for construction, operation, or maintenance shall thereby be created against any such lands.

(Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 263, 35 Stat. 798.)

#### References in Text

The Reclamation Act, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 12 (§371 et seq.) of Title 43, Public Lands. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of Title 43 and Tables.

#### Codification

A further proviso authorized the expenditure of a limited amount from the appropriation in the act for irrigation, to meet the cost of carrying out this section, and was omitted as temporary.

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in act Apr. 30, 1908, ch. 153, 35 Stat. 85.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07332 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 07332\07332_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07332\07332_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07332\07332_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 07332\07332_Part A.XLS Plant submitted survey file

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 347.33 Individual additions to retirement savings bond.

Fiscal Service is authorized to establish minimum amounts for initial and additional contributions to a retirement savings bond under this subpart.
#### § 34.100 The Trust Fund.

Treasury will deposit into the Trust Fund an amount equal to 80 percent of all administrative and civil penalties paid after July 6, 2012 by responsible parties in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit *Deepwater Horizon* pursuant to a court order, negotiated settlement, or other instrument under section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. After these administrative and civil penalties have been deposited into the Trust Fund, the Trust Fund will terminate on the date all amounts owed to the Trust Fund have been returned to the Trust Fund, and all amounts in the Trust Fund have been expended.
July 12, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JEMALATHA VIJAYAN, M .D. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00997

- CV V.

PAUL JOSEPH , Appellee

____________________ This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s order in favor of appellee , Paul Joseph, signed September 30, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the trial court’s order. We therefore order the order of the
court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion.

We order appellee, Paul Joseph, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We
further order this decision certified below for observance.
# L_2020161EN.01000901.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/682

of 19 May 2020

appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 December 2019, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2019/2157 (1), (EU) 2020/102 (2), (EU) 2020/144 (3) and (EU) 2020/511 (4) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 December 2019, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2019/2157 (1), (EU) 2020/102 (2), (EU) 2020/144 (3) and (EU) 2020/511 (4) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.

| (2) | An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Francesco RUSSO, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Francesco RUSSO,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:

| — | Mr Domenico GIANNETTA, Consigliere della Regione Calabria. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Domenico GIANNETTA, Consigliere della Regione Calabria.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2020.

For the Council

The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/102 of 20 January 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 20, 24.1.2020, p. 2).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/144 of 3 February 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 32, 4.2.2020, p. 16).

3

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/511 of 26 March 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 113, 8.4.2020, p. 18).

4

---
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Anastacio Soto Vega (Captured)

# 									Anastacio Soto Vega (Captured)							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

April 14, 2023

U.S. Actions Targeting Transnational Criminals for Illicit Fentanyl Activity – United States Department of State

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Sinaloa Cartel is largely responsible for the massive influx of fentanyl into the U.S. over the past several years.

One faction of the Sinaloa Cartel trafficking fentanyl is led by Leobardo Garcia Corrales, a/k/a “Leo.”  **Anastacio Soto Vega** is a weapons expert for the Cartel who reports directly to the Garcia Corrales brothers and personally traveled to Vienna, Austria, in December 2022 to inspect an array of military-grade weapons on behalf of the Garcia Corrales brothers in furtherance of a weapons-for-fentanyl discussed in an earlier meeting in Mexico.

On March 18, 2023, Soto Vega was arrested in Athens, Greece, on a provisional arrest warrant based on charges in a criminal complaint which were later included in an indictment.  He remains in custody pending extradition to the U.S..

On April 4, 2023, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against Anastacio Soto Vega and others charging them with Fentanyl Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns & Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns & Destructive Devices.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $1 MILLION** for information leading to the conviction of Anastacio Soto Vega.

If you have information, please contact the DEA via email at ChapitosTips@dea.gov.  If you are located outside of the U.S., you may also visit the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.  If in the U.S., you can contact the local DEA office in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingGreeceMexico

Back to Top