alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo LUNA, aka Cesar Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10481.

D.C. No. CR-98-00292-JBR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2002.*

Decided June 4, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Luna appeals his 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, and 924(o). We dismiss.

Luna knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. *See United States v. Nunez,*223 F.3d 956, 958-959 (9th Cir.2000), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 272, 151 L.Ed.2d 199 (2001) (noting statutory right to appeal may be waived if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waiver in a plea agreement).

Luna’s claim that his waiver was invalid fails. The district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(6) when it allowed the prosecutor to read the waiver clause in open court and followed up by confirming Luna’s understanding of the agreement. *Cf. United Staes v. Portillo-Cano,*192 F.3d 1246, 1251 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting under Rule 11(c)(1), the prosecutor may explain the nature of the charges to the defendant instead of the judge). The district court’s statements during the plea colloquy and at sentencing that Luna might be able to appeal under some circumstances to the extent he did not waive that right did not invalidate Luna’s waiver. The court did not affirmatively inform Luna he could appeal and Luna could not have reasonably expected he retained that right. *See United States v. Schuman,*127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam); *United States v. Martinez,*143 F.3d 1266, 1272 (9th Cir.1998).

DISMISSED.

**

 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Version 002 January 20, 2010 United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine



## Risk Management Document



## Arugula, Eruc a sativa P

. Mill ., from Colombia into the

Continental United States

January 2 0 , 2 010

Plant Health Programs (PHP)

Regulations, Permits, and Manuals (RPM)

Contact Person: Dorothy C. WaysonVersion 002 January 20, 2010 Introduction

In response to a request from Colombia for market access to import fresh arugula [ Eruca sativa

P. Mill. ] in to the Continental United States , t he Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

(CPHST) division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) (USDA. 200 8 ) as per

the Gui delines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessment (USDA. 2000)

. T he PRA identified

no pests of quarantine significance that would likely follow the pathway of fresh arugula leaves

imported into the continental United States.

The pest risk assessment docu ment, Importation of Arugula (Eruca sativa P

. Mill .) into the

Continental United States from Colombia

, found no evidence of quarantine pests of arugula from

Colombia that follow the pathway. Species found as external feeders of arugula from Colombia

are u nlikely to remain with the vegetable because the product will not be harvested or selected

for exportation if the pests are present or if it shows any damage from these pests.

Risk Management Measures

**•** Arugula must be imported in commercial shipments only

**•** APHIS requires a phytosanitary certificate be issued by the Colombia NPPO for ea ch

shipment to assure that the a rugula is free of pests.

**•** Each shipment is subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States.

Conclusion

APHIS believes that the p hytosanitary measures proposed in this document will result in the

effective removal of potential quarantine pests associated with the importation of fresh arugula

from Colombia. The inspections received in Colombia and at the port of entry into the United

States will be effective in assuring that arugula is free of pests (Cavey, 2003; Wittenberg and

Cock, 2001).

Author

Walter P. Gould

Senior Risk Manager

References:

Cavey, J.F. 2003. Mitigating introduction of invasive plant pests: the APHIS

- PPQ Mi ssion.

From: Chapter 13, pp. 350

- 361 in Ruiz, G.M and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasive species:

vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 518p.Version 002 January 20, 2010 USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway

- Initiated Pest Risk Assessments, Version 5.02. USDA

APHI S, PPQ; http://oars.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf

USDA. 200 8

. Importation of Fresh Arugula [ Eruca sativa P. Mill.] into the Continen tal United

States from Colomb ia. A Pathway

- Initiated Risk Assessment USDA, APHIS, CPHST,

PERAL, Raleigh, NC. 23 pp.

Wittenberg, R. and M.J.W. Cock. 2001. Invasive Alien Species: A toolkit of best prevention and

management practices. CABI publishing, CAB International, Wallingford , Oxon, UK. 228

pp.
#### § 15.737-26 Appeal to the General Counsel.

Within 30 days from the date of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, either party may appeal to the General Counsel. The appeal shall be filed with the Director in duplicate and shall include exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and supporting reasons for such exceptions. If an appeal is filed by the Director, he/she shall transmit a copy thereof to the respondent. Within 30 days after receipt of an appeal or copy thereof, the other party may file a reply brief in duplicate with the Director. If the reply brief is filed by the Director, he/she shall transmit a copy of it to the respondent. Upon the filing of an appeal and a reply brief, if any, the Director shall transmit the entire record to the General Counsel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                       2,047,000               3,192,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,210,000               8,748,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,131,000               3,785,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,857,000              19,115,000
<PP&E>                                       4,054,000               2,985,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,695,000              31,768,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,884,000               5,550,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    41,238,000              40,029,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,397,000)            (15,359,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,695,000              31,768,000
<SALES>                                     22,578,000              19,987,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,578,000                       0
<CGS>                                        9,726,000               8,380,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,097,000              10,011,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             164,000                 364,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,591,000               2,632,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   650,000                  86,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   941,000               2,546,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06                     .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .17


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 115 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 115

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
                       business use of the home.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Mfume introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
                       business use of the home.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS USE OF THE HOME.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 208A(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for certain business or 
rental use) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
``For purposes of subparagraph (A), in the case of a trade or business 
which would not (but for this sentence) have a principal place of 
business, its principal place of business shall be where substantially 
all of the management activities for such trade or business occur.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41868-41869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DoD-2009-OS-0128]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete two Systems of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting two systems 
of records notices from its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
September 18, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom 
of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy

[[Page 41869]]

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the 
Federal Register and are available from the address above.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete two 
system of records notices from its inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 
deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy 
Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission 
of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: August 12, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletions:

    WUSU 06, USUHS Family Practice Medical Records (February 22, 1993, 
58 FR 10920).

Reason

    Based on the review of WUSU 06, and discussion with the system 
manager and HA Privacy POC, it has been concluded that the USUHS Family 
Practice Medical Records are covered under the umbrella SORN, DHA 07 
(Military Health Information System). HA/GC supports the determination 
to delete WUSU 06.
    DWHS P20, Report of Personnel Assigned Outside of Department of 
Defense (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227).

Reason

    Review of DWHS P20, and a discussion with the program manager, 
revealed that no PII is solicited in the process and that records are 
not retrieved by name. This collection of information is not a Privacy 
Act system of records and does not require a system of records notice; 
therefore, DWHS P20 can be deleted.

[FR Doc. E9-19864 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Frederick Vilmar, Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided December 5th, 1878.)

Section 1016 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to references in proceedings under assignments for benefit of creditors, and a referee in such proceedings must be sworn unless the oath is waived.

Application to confirm, the report of a referee upon the accounting of an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Larremore, J.

Section 1016 of the Code of Civil Procedure pro vides that the referee must before proceeding to hear the testimony be sworn faithfully and fairly to try the issues, or to determine the question referred to him, as the case requires, and to make a just and true report according to the best of his understanding. “ But where all the parties whose interests will be affected by the result are of age and appear in person or by attorney, they may expressly waive the referee’s oath. The waiver may be made by written stipulation or orally. If it is orally it must be entered in the referee’s minutes.”

I cannot find any such entry in the minutes of the referee herein, nor can I find any allusion to such a waiver having-been made in his report, and any further proceedings under the order would be therefore irregular *(Malcolm*v. Foster, 5 N. Y. W. Dig. 310; *Exchange Fire Ins. Co.*v. Irving, Id. 587).

Under these decisions I must send the report back.

Report referred back.
#### Jenkins *v.*Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division et al.

[No. 20,154.

Filed August 20, 1964.]

*Lloyd L. Dewester, Jr.,*and *Ross P. Walker,*both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Edwin K. Steers,*Attorney General and *Keith*
      *337
      *Campbell,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee, Review Board.

Hunter, C. J.

This was a proceeding before the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division to determine the eligibility of the claimant, the appellant George W. Jenkins, under the Indiana Employment Security Act.

The appeals referee and the Review Board, with one member dissenting affirmed the determination of the local deputy that the appellant is ineligible for benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.

This matter is before us on a petition to remand filed by the appellee Board of Review.

Upon an examination of said petition and transcript of the record in this cause, we find that the decision of the referee and the Review Board was predicated upon a certain collective bargaining agreement as follows:

> (a) Potter *&*Brumfield Division of American Machine & Foundry Co. Agreement with Local Lodge No. 1459 of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. L. - C. I. O., March 21, 1963. (Transcript, p. 30).

However, we find that said collective bargaining agreement was never offered, admitted or placed in evidence before said referee or the Board. This Court stated in the case of *Jung*v. *Review Board of Indiana Employ. Sec. Div.*(1964), 136 Ind. App. 248, 199 N. E. 2d 476 “. . . there must appear no possibility nor opportunity that evidence extraneous the record may serve as any part of the factual foundation upon which the conclusion and ultimate determination of the Board may be premised.” ■ •

*338It is now therefore ordered that this cause be remanded to the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division for further hearing with instructions to entertain the introduction into evidence of said collective bargaining agreement and any other unoffered and unadmitted written instruments which heretofore may have been considered by the Board in its determination of the issue.

Remanded.

Note.—Reported in 200 N. E. 2d 643.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Resources

HomeOffice of the Ombuds...About Us – Office of the Ombuds

# 									About Us							

Office of the Ombuds

## What is the Office of the Ombuds?

The Department of State Office of the Ombuds handles workplace conflicts that are not currently in a formal process and helps employees identify mutually satisfactory solutions. The Department of State is a complex and far flung organization with many employees spread over 200 countries, 178 Embassies, 86 Consulates and 9 Missions. We state routinely that people are our most important asset; however there are times for nearly all of us when we need assistance or relief to solve difficulties in our work lives. When these problems defy easy categorization as potential grievances, EEO issues, or IG matters, that is precisely when you should call on the Ombuds.

Back to Top
### Request for Additional Informat ion - Skyline Photography LLC 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Dalton:
This letter is to inform yo u that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2361). Th is information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (i ncluding payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the addi tional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any propri etary information to t he FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive t he information described above by 9/10/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without no tifying you further.
If you have any questions, please fe el free to contact us (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Jake Troutman
Thank you for your intere st in aviation safety. FAA Office of Rulemakin g Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:02 PM To: skylinephotographyllc@gmail.com Cc: May, Rick (FAA) Pa g e 1 of 1 Request for Additional Information - Sk y line Photo g raph y LLC

8/26/2015 htt p s://email.dot. g ov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exem p tions @ faa. g ov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note

...
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P6 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


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


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


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


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


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; KeyBank National Association; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; LNR Partners, LLC;and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:	March 31, 2023

/s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2016-P6 Certifications

---
- Clean EDGE Asia Home
- About Us
- Releases

HomeClean EDGE Asia – Enhancing Development and Growth through Energy...About Us: Clean EDGE Asia

# 									About Us: Clean EDGE Asia							

Clean EDGE Asia is a US government initiative that takes a holistic approach to supporting the clean energy transition in the Indo Pacific.  Clean EDGE harnesses the expertise and resources of the U.S. government, private sector, international financial institutions, and like-minded governments to support and advance Asia’s clean energy and climate ambitions. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources leads this initiative with the support of ten other U.S. agencies: the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the Department of the Treasury (DOT), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation.

Back to Top