alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony D. LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-15684.

D.C. No. CV-98-00636-LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 18, 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). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Anthony D. Lee appeals pro se the district court’s grant of the appellee’s motion for summary judgment resulting in the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as time-barred under Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a habeas petition is barred by the statute of limitations, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d *9101104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate and remand.

At the time that it ruled on Lee’s § 2254 petition, the district court did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in *Bunney v. Mitchell,*262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (providing that under Rule 24 of the California Rules of Court, the denial of a habeas petition, within the California Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, is not final for 30 days). In light of this court’s decision in that case, Lee’s petition is timely under the AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations by 16 days. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 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.
# L_2020408EN.01002001.xml

| 4.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 408/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 408/20

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2020/1815 of 23 November 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 407 of 3 December 2020
  )

This publication should be considered null and void.

---
#### § 15.737-16 Proof; variance; amendment of pleadings.

In the case of a variance between the allegations in a pleading and the evidence adduced in support of the pleading, the Administrative Law Judge may order or authorize amendment of the pleading to conform to the evidence: *Provided,* That the party who would otherwise be prejudiced by the amendment is given reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations of the pleading as amended; and the Administrative Law Judge shall make findings on any issue presented by the pleadings as so amended.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6040
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-119, CA-00-814) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); seeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnson’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[106th Congress Public Law 410]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ410.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1788]]

Public Law 106-410
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 44, <<NOTE: Nov. 1, 2000 -  [H.R. 4110]>> United States 
     Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Historical 
 Publications and Records Commission for fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2504(f )(1) 
of title 44, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``and'';
            (2) in subparagraph (K), by striking the period and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
                    ``(L) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
                    ``(M) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
                    ``(N) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
                    ``(O) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.''.

    Approved November 1, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4110:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-768 (Comm. on Government Reform).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-466 (Comm. on Governmental Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            July 24, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
** **

** **

**Certifications**

 

 

I, Richard Simpson, certifythat:

 

1.        I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CD2017-CD3 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.        Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.        Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.        Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.        All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation; K-Star Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC;Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation; KeyBank National Association; Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas; and CWCapital Asset Management LLC.

 

 

Date:   March 29,2024

 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

 

Richard Simpson

President, CitigroupCommercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(senior officer in charge ofsecuritization of the depositor)
Order entered January 11, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00354-CV

PAMELLA JOINER, Appellant

V.

THE WEITZMAN GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-16489

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 9, 2023 fourth motion for extension 

of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 

30, 2023. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v Kristos Katehis, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 546]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered July 28, 2004, which granted petitioner insurer’s application to permanently stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demanded by respondent insured, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was struck by a vehicle in October 2000. Although the police responded, attempts made by respondent’s two original attorneys to locate the police report were unsuccessful, and *225both advised respondent that they were unable to discover the identity of the offending vehicle’s owner or driver. In December 2002, a new attorney discovered a police report, but it was not the original report, which apparently was never filed, and did not list the offending vehicle’s owner, license plate number or insurance information. Not until May 2003, after somehow learning the owner’s name, did respondent’s attorney give petitioner written notice of a potential uninsured motorist claim. Finally, in April 2004, after a January 2004 disclaimer of coverage in an action brought by respondent against the owner, respondent’s attorney served a demand for arbitration. Arbitration was properly stayed on the ground that respondent’s May 2003 notice of a potential uninsured motorist claim was not given as soon as practical, as required by the parties’ policy. Respondent’s inability to discover the police report or otherwise learn the identity of the offending vehicle’s owner or driver “should have alerted him to the fact that he had a potential uninsured motorist claim” much sooner than the 272 years it took him to give petitioner notice thereof *(Matter of Nova Cas. Co. v Helmstadt,*204 AD2d 330 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
#### § 1026.640 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    Reconciliation of Amounts Previously Reported

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        First   
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)          Quarter  
                                                       -------  
<S>                                                   <C>
AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED DURING 1998:

     Net income                                         13,785  
     Earnings per common and common
       equivalent shares
          Basic:                                          0.34  
          Diluted:                                        0.33  

EFFECT OF POOLING OF INTERESTS TRANSACTIONS:

     Net income                                          2,914  
     Earnings per common and common
       equivalent shares
          Basic:                                          0.01  
          Diluted:                                        0.02  

AS RESTATED FOR 1998:

     Net income                                         16,699  
     Earnings per common and common
       equivalent shares
          Basic:                                          0.35  
          Diluted:                                        0.35  

</TABLE>
#### § 1.162(l)-0 Table of Contents.

This section lists the table of contents for § 1.162(l)-1.

## § 1.162(l)-1 Deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

(a) Coordination of section 162(l) deduction for taxpayers subject to section 36B.

(1) In general.

(2) Specified premiums.

(3) Specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments.

(b) Additional guidance.

(c) Applicability date.

[T.D. 9822, 82 FR 34610, July 26, 2017]
#### § 34.402 Grant administration—Comprehensive Plan Component.

The Council must publish policies and procedures for administration of Comprehensive Plan Component grants that are consistent with applicable Federal laws and policies on grants. These grant policies and procedures must include uniform guidelines for assignees to use when selecting subrecipients, awarding grants and subawards, and monitoring compliance. The Council must also establish and implement a program to monitor compliance with its grant agreements.
Exhibit
      32.2




ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.




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 Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Warren
      Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Warren ClamenWarren
                ClamenChief
                Financial OfficerDate:
                August 6, 2008
* 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

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30434

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE KENNEDY, also known as Tater,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-302-4-B

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Kennedy appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and

marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm in connection

with a drug offense. Kennedy argues that the district court’s

erroneous advice concerning the maximum sentence on his firearm

possession offense invalidated his guilty plea.

Because Kennedy failed to object to the district court’s

Rule 11 colloquy, the issue is reviewed for plain error. 
No. 03-30434

-2-

United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). Under the

plain-error standard of review, “reversal is not required unless 

there is (1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain; (3) that 

affects the defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) that seriously

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459

(5th Cir. 2000). 

The district court misadvised Kennedy that the maximum 

penalty on the firearm possession count was five years’

imprisonment. The stated term was in fact the mandatory

minimum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Although the district court erred, Kennedy fails to establish

that the error affected his substantial rights. See Vasquez,

216 F.3d at 459. At rearraignment, Kennedy confirmed that

his maximum sentencing exposure was life imprisonment on the

conspiracy count and that any sentence imposed on the firearm

possession count would run consecutively to any other sentence

imposed. The district court imposed only a 120-month sentence

on the conspiracy count and a 60-month sentence on the firearm

possession count. See United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d

440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000). Kennedy has not established that the

district court’s error materially affected his guilty plea. 

See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1208

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for

increased fairness and competition in elections for Federal office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1995

Mr. OXLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

provide for increased fairness and competition in elections for Federal office.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN CERTAIN LIMITATION

4 AMOUNTS APPLICABLE TO CONTRIBUTIONS.

5 Section 315(a)(1)(C), section 315(a)(2)(A), and sec6 tion 315(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Election Campaign Act

7 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(2)(A), and

8 441a(a)(2)(C)) are each amended by striking out

9 ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$1,000’’.
2

•HR 1208 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTION LIMITA2 TION ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS

3 OTHER THAN INDIVIDUAL IN-STATE RESI4 DENTS.

5 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

6 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

7 the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Representative

9 in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress

10 may not, with respect to an election, accept contributions

11 from persons other than individual in-State residents to12 taling more than 50 percent of the total of contributions

13 accepted from all sources.

14 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection, the term ‘individual

15 in-State resident’ means an individual who resides in the

16 State in which the congressional district involved is lo17 cated.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         565,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      18,679,493
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,411,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,382,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      6,087,687
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,382,079
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               687,910
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  628,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,205)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.64)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31(b)**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Wayne R. Brownlee, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporationof Saskatchewan Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.