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

No. 00-50394.

D.C. No. CR-00-00242-LGB-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

*517Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

Aurelio Narvaez appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Relying on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Narvaez contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 16 points, because the fact that his prior deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that *Apprendi*calls into question the continuing validity of *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Narvaez’s contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 413-14 (9th Cir. 2000), *as amended*(Feb.8, 2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

. 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.
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Paul
Vanderslice, 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 annual 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 Global Investors, LLC; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; KeyBank National Association; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Rialto Capital
Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC; AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC; and LNR Partners, LLC.

Date: March 29, 2018



|                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul Vanderslice                                                                                                  
|Paul Vanderslice                                                                                                      
|President, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### § 515.589 Authorization of emergency medical services.

The provision of nonscheduled emergency medical services in the United States to Cuban nationals is authorized.

[80 FR 56926, Sept. 21, 2015]
#### § 23.1 What is the purpose of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975?

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, is designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act also permits federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of Federal funds, to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and these regulations.
§ 19.300 What must I do before I enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier? When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: ( a ) Checking the *EPLS;* or
( b ) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or
( c ) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 26, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Don Arthur Barnette*, Jonesboro, Georiga; to acquire additional voting shares of CCB Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Community Capital Bank, both of Jonesboro, Georgia.                

*2. Odric Gregory, individually, and as Chief Manager of Gregory Investments LLC*, both of Gallatin, Tennessee; to acquire additional voting shares of Macon Banctrust, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Macon Bank and Trust Company, both of Lafayette, Tennessee.                 

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

*1. Harold Ira Kane*, Corpus Christi, Texas; to retain voting shares of Charter Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Charter Alliance Bank (                    *de novo*), both of Corpus Christi, Texas, Charter IBHC, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, and Charter Bank, Corpus Christi, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 6, 2009.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-19172 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
These changes were read into the record at the February 23, 2010 Hearing Board in 

response to comment letters from Dunn Edwards Paints and the American Coatings 

Association

PROPOSED CHANGES

To allow industry an opportunity to clear its inventory and comply 

with new VOC limits in a timely manner.

ICAPCD Rule 424: Architectural Coatings

DELETIONS:

Section G.5.m: Gonioapparent Characteristics for Coatings

REINSTATEMENT FOR SELL THROUGH PURPOSES: INVENTORY WILL NEED 

TO BE CLEARED BY JANAURY 1, 2011.

Drying Time previously section D.6.f

Surface Chalkiness previously section D.6.g

Most Restrictive VOC Limit Section D.2

Antenna coatings

Antifouling Coatings

Fire retardand coatings

Flow Coatings

Lacquer coatings (including lacquer sanding sealers)

Temperature indicator safety coatings

ICAPCD Rule 101: DEFINITIONS

DELETIONS:

Sealer

Undercoater

Gonioapparent Characteristics for Coatings

REINSTATEMENT FOR SELL THROUGH PURPOSES: INVENTORY WILL NEED 

TO BE CLEARED BY JANAURY 1, 2011.

Antenna Coating

Antifouling Coating

Clear Brushing

Clear Wood Coatings

Lacquer

Quick-Dry Enamel

Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater

Sanding Sealer

Specialty Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater

Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coating

Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating

Varnish

Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer

Waterproofing Sealer

THE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO ALLOW INDUSTRY AN OPPORTUNITY TO 

NOT ONLY CLEAR ITS INVENTORY BUT TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR 

TESTING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW VOC LIMITS EFFECTIVE JANAURY 

1, 2011.
HomeBiographies...Erik Woodhouse

# 				Erik Woodhouse			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions						Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs												

				January 21, 2021 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
#### § 510.409 Credit extended and cards issued by financial institutions to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked.

The prohibition in § 510.201 on dealing in property subject to that section and the prohibition in § 510.206 on exporting services to North Korea prohibit U.S. financial institutions from performing under any existing credit agreements, including charge cards, debit cards, or other credit facilities issued by a financial institution to the Government of North Korea, the Workers' Party of Korea, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 510.201(a).
Order entered August 27 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00510
- CR
SHATTO BREONLEE COLE MAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 003
- 80528
- 2013



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On August 6, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant appeared at the hearing; ( 2) appellant indicated that he would like to pursue the appeal, but could not afford an attorney; (3) the trial court allowed appellant to apply for court

- appointed counsel with the Collin County Indigent Defense Office; (4) after appellant completed an In digency Flow Sheet, he was found to not be indigent; and (5) when appellant learned he was no indigent, he stated he would abandon the appeal.
We ORDER the appeal submitted without briefs as of September 2, 2014 to a panel consisting of Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4).We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Shatto

Coleman, 3009 Misty Way, Wylie, Texas 75908.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of the order, by electronic transmission, to the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4059



# 
M ARK T HOMPSON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00-147-AMD) Submitted: August 19, 2002 Decided: November 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELKenneth W. Ravenell, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Mark Thompson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Thompson first contends the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him. Thompson contends hewas denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Ward , 171 F.3d188, 193 (4th Cir. 1999). We find no error in the district court’s decision to deny Thompson’s motion. See Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972).Thompson next contends the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. This court reviews the factual findings underlying amotion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the legal determinations de novo. United States v. Rusher , 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Seidman , 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998), we find that at the time of Thompson’s seizure, police at the very least had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Consequently, the court properly denied Thompson’s suppression motion. Accordingly, Thompson’s conviction is affirmed. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. T HOMPSON
§ 515.527 Certain transactions with respect to United States intellectual property. ( a ) ( 1 ) Transactions related to the registration and renewal in the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the United States Copyright Office of patents, trademarks, and copyrights in which the Government of Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest are authorized.
( 2 ) No transaction or payment is authorized or approved pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section with respect to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that is the same as or substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated, as that term is defined in § 515.336, unless the original owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial name, or the bona fide successor-in-interest has expressly consented.
( b ) This section authorizes the payment from blocked accounts or otherwise of fees currently due to the United States Government in connection with any transaction authorized in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) This section further authorizes the payment from blocked accounts or otherwise of the reasonable and customary fees and charges currently due to attorneys or representatives within the United States in connection with the transactions authorized in paragraph (a) of this section.
[60 FR 54196, Oct. 20, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 25813, May 13, 1999]
§ 515.201 Transactions involving designated foreign countries or their nationals; effective date. ( a ) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instrumentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, if either such transactions are by, or on behalf of, or pursuant to the direction of a foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, or such transactions involve property in which a foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect: ( 1 ) All transfers of credit and all payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution or banking institutions wheresoever located, with respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or by any person (including a banking institution) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
( 2 ) All transactions in foreign exchange by any person within the United States; and
( 3 ) The exportation or withdrawal from the United States of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, or the earmarking of any such property, by any person within the United States.
( b ) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instrumentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, if such transactions involve property in which any foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect: ( 1 ) All dealings in, including, without limitation, transfers, withdrawals, or exportations of, any property or evidences of indebtedness or evidences of ownership of property by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and
( 2 ) All transfers outside the United States with regard to any property or property interest subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
( c ) Any transaction for the purpose or which has the effect of evading or avoiding any of the prohibitions set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is hereby prohibited.
( d ) For the purposes of this part, the term *foreign country designated under this part* and the term *designated foreign country* mean Cuba and the term *effective date* and the term *effective date of this section* mean with respect to Cuba, or any national thereof, 12:01 a.m., e.s.t., July 8, 1963.
( e ) When a transaction results in the blocking of funds at a banking institution pursuant to this section and a party to the transaction believes the funds have been blocked due to mistaken identity, that party may seek to have such funds unblocked pursuant to the administrative procedures set forth in § 501.806 of this chapter.
[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 62 FR 45106, Aug. 25, 1997]
### U. S. Geological Survey highlights in marine research

Edited by: Samuel H. Clarke

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir938

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
40212.

#### STRIPLAND v. TERRY.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Marcus Terry sued Fred Stripland for malicious prosecution. Terry rented a “garden plot” from Zed *178Brannon for $5. When plaintiff planted beans on the property, Stripland swore out a trespass warrant against him. Plaintiff made bond and the grand jury returned a no-bill. At the next term defendant appeared before the grand jury and plaintiff was indicted. Plaintiff filed a demand for trial and was discharged when two terms passed without trial. (The property is the subject of a land line dispute. See *Stripland v. Nalley,*108 Ga. App. post.

Decided July 8, 1963.

*Jess H. Watson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Leon Boling,*contra.

Terry sued for $1,000 damages and $100 counsel fees and the jury awarded him $100. Defendant moved for a new trial on the general grounds, now abandoned, and one special ground. The motion was overruled. *Held:*

The complaint of the special ground is that the court erroneously admitted in evidence a deed from third parties to Zed Bran-non’s father. The objection was that the deed was “irrelevant, immaterial, harmful and prejudicial.” Zed Brannon’s father had died prior to the trespass incident and Zed and his mother were his only heirs. The defendant contended that Zed’s father had sold him certain property including the “garden plot” but he had no deed.

In these circumstances the deed was properly admitted because the claim of both plaintiff and defendant was under the grantee therein and it can not be harmful to either. See *Smith v. Federal Land Bank,*181 Ga. 1, 3 (3) (181 SE 149). Moreover, the objection urged is too general for consideration. *Staples v. State,*37 Ga. App. 97 (2) (139 SE 94).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
# L_2021327DE.01004201.xml

| 16.9.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 327/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 327/42

---

Berichtigung der Empfehlung (EU) 2020/912 des Rates vom 30. Juni 2020 zur vorübergehenden Beschränkung nicht unbedingt notwendiger Reisen in die EU und die mögliche Aufhebung dieser Beschränkung

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 208 I vom 1. Juli 2020
  )

Auf dem Titelblatt, im Inhaltsverzeichnis und auf Seite 1 im Titel:

Anstatt:

„Empfehlung (EU) 2020/912 des Rates vom 30. Juni 2020 zur vorübergehenden Beschränkung nicht unbedingt notwendiger Reisen in die EU und die mögliche Aufhebung dieser Beschränkung“,

muss es heißen:

„„Empfehlung (EU) 2020/912 des Rates vom 30. Juni 2020 zur vorübergehenden Beschränkung nicht unbedingt notwendiger Reisen in die EU und möglichen Aufhebung dieser Beschränkung“.

---
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 359.69 Does Fiscal Service make any reservations as to issue of Series I savings bonds?

We may reject any application for Series I bonds, in whole or in part. We may refuse to issue, or permit to be issued, any bonds in any case or class of cases, if we deem the action to be in the public interest. Our action in any such respect is final.