alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10318 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RACKSTRAW, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CV-564-Y/4:92-CR-10-8

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Christopher Rackstraw has appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Rackstraw contends that he was the victim of selective prosecution and entrapment by Government officials. Rackstraw waived these nonjurisdictional issues by pleading guilty. United States v. Sarmiento , 786 F.2d 665, 668 (5th Cir. 1986). Rackstraw contends that the sentencing scheme for crack-cocaine violations violates his right to due process. Rackstraw argues: (1) the sentencing scheme is racially disparatein effect; (2) differences in punishment for crack-cocaine and

powdered-cocaine offenses are irrational; and (3) the terms "crack-cocaine" and "cocaine-base" are unconstitutionally vague. Rackstraw also contends for the first time in his reply brief that his sentence is unconstitutionally harsh. These issues have been decided previously to the contrary. United States v. Fisher , 22 F.3d 574, 579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 529 (1994). Finally, Rackstraw contends that the district court should not have considered relevant conduct in determining his sentence and that the district court failed to make findings with respect to similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity of his prior acts. The district court’s technical application of the sentencing guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue and is not cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Rackstraw that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Rackstraw is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,200
<SECURITIES>                                     1,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                       166
<INVENTORY>                                      9,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,362
<PP&E>                                          29,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,431
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,635
<SALES>                                         48,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,910
<CGS>                                           28,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,755
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
#### § 549.302 Effective date.

The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part and, with respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 549.201(a), refers to the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice that such person's property and interests in property are blocked.
HomeDigest of United States Practice in International Law 2020...Chapter 4: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2020

# 									Chapter 4: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2020							

 

2020 Digest: Chapter 4 [306 KB]

 

Tags

International LawOffice of the Legal Adviser

Back to Top
40254.

#### GUESS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Decided January 30, 1964.

*Álben't P. Feldman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeBieux, Burt DeBieux,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The main question in this case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s answer to a certified question in this case. See *Guess v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,*219 Ga. 581 (134 SE2d 783). Counsel for the employee concedes that the employee is not entitled to compensation beyond the time at which the employer requested a hearing on a change in condition. It follows, therefore, under the ruling of the Supreme Court and the above concession that the employee is entitled to an award in this case from the date of the cessation of payments to the date that the employer requested a hearing on a change in condition.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
CMF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0729

CHRISTOPHER WAGNER,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including July 14, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2020

06/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0729
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I,Richard Simpson, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Kand 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 2017-P7 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on myknowledge, 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 statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of thedistribution, 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 RegulationAB, 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 relatedattestation 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 Rules13a-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 insuch 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: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; Torchlight Loan Services, LLC; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; and KeyBankNational Association. 

Date:    March 29, 2019 

 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson

President, CitigroupCommercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

 
CGCMT 2017-P7Certifications (2018) 

**
# Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Releases

102 items

        -    		Foreign Affairs Day Remarks	  Richard R. VermaMay 3, 2024Dean Acheson AuditoriumWashington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to the People’s Republic of China and the Philippines	  May 3, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary Verma’s Participation in Ceremony to Announce the American Legation in Tangier, Morocco, as One of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places	  May 1, 2024 
        -    Notice to the Press  		Secretary Blinken, Deputy Secretary Verma, and Director General Bernicat to Deliver Remarks at Foreign Affairs Day Celebration	  May 1, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		State Department Highlights Initiatives Advancing High-Integrity Carbon Markets	  April 19, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary Verma’s Visit to Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Angola	  April 19, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		OECD Officially Launches the Blue Dot Network to Increase Quality Infrastructure Investments in Emerging Markets	  April 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to Paris and Geneva	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		“Powering Up Diplomacy in the 21st Century” Remarks by Richard Verma, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources	  Richard R. VermaApril 3, 2024 
        -    Notice to the Press  		Deputy Secretary Verma to Join a Conversation about “Powering Up American Diplomacy in the 21st Century” at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)	  April 2, 2024 

123…11next page

Back to Top
#### § 562.303 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.
Home2023 Treaties and Agreements...Canada (23-325) – Additional Protocol to the Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from National of Third Countries

# 									Canada (23-325) – Additional Protocol to the Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from National of Third Countries							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 25, 2023

Migration and Refugees

Signed at Ottawa and Washington March 29 and April 15, 2022; entered into force March 25, 2023.

Additional Protocol to agreement signed December 5, 2022: TIAS 04-1229.
Download Agreement						 [2 MB]

Tags

CanadaMigrationRefugeesTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 570.314 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23 - 0224 THOMAS C. WEINER, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant

v. ST. PETER’S HEALTH, a Montana Domestic Nonprofit Corporation, d/b/a St. Peter’s Hospital Defendant and Appellee. On Appeal from Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis & Clark County Cause No. CDV 2022 - 501, Hon. Kathy Seeley, District Court Judge **GRANT OF UNOPPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME** Pursuant to the authority granted under Rule 26, M.R.App.P., Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Appellant may file and serve h is openin g brief in this matter on or before Wednesday , June 14 , 202 3 . DATED this _____day of May , 202 3

_____________________ Clerk of Court 05/10/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0224Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 10 2023
#### § 558.410 Setoffs prohibited.

A setoff against blocked property (including a blocked account), whether by a U.S. financial institution or other U.S. person, is a prohibited transfer under § 558.201 if effected after the effective date.
#### § 407.13 Weapons and explosives.

No person while on the property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30266.

D.C. No. CR-00-6002-1-FVS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

Before 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); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, the motion to submit without argument is granted.

MEMORANDUM2

Octavio Sanchez-Sanchez appeals the judgment of conviction and his 46 month sentence following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry by a previously deported alien. Sanchez-Sanchez contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pled in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Sanchez-Sanchez had been deported following a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Sanchez-Sanchez also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *amended*(Feb. 8, 2001).

The sentence is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), consistent with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.2000). *See United States v. Herrera-Bianco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (2000).

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.
#### Maxwell Roy FOREHAND, Appellant, v. Robin J. FOREHAND, Appellee.

No. JJ-368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 18, 1978.

*830L. J. Arnold, III, of Arnold & Wilson, Green Cove Springs, for appellant.

Myron C. Prevatt, Keystone Heights, for appellee.

MELVIN, Judge.

Appellant/husband seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded to the appellee/wife as a special equity the full and complete ownership of the marital premises. Husband urges that the court erred by failing to recognize his special equity in the marital home.

The marital home of the parties was originally titled in the wife’s name and had been acquired by her prior to the marriage. In connection with obtaining a $6,000 mortgage-loan, the wife transferred title to the marital home to the parties as a tenancy by the entireties. The trial court, in awarding the marital home to the wife, found that no gift was intended by this transfer. This finding by the trial court will not be disturbed. However, the record reveals that during the marriage, the husband utilized monies he received from the sale of the property which he had acquired prior to the marriage to make substantial improvements to the marital home. It is undisputed that the husband contributed $5,117.83 for these improvements.

Based on the record, we conclude the trial court did err by not recognizing the husband’s proven special equity in the marital home to the extent of $5,117.83. *Sanders v. Sanders,*362 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), Opinion filed June 6, 1978. Further, the final judgment fails to provide that the $6,000 mortgage on the marital home, now titled solely in the wife’s name, should be the wife’s sole obligation.

Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to award a special equity in the marital home to the husband in the amount of $5,117.83 but with such provisions as the trial court deems proper in reference to the exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the marital home by the wife and children during their minority or so long as the same is utilized as the place of residence for the children.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
SMEUIKON STRAIT
BATHYMETRIC MAP MOUNT KATMAI

L

A

P/E iN

oh
Athmed cf Weabearan DC Sects STATS. MOUNT KATMAI
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE fe
| NOS NO 5-3

NATIONAL OCTAMC AND ATMOSRHERC ADMirdRST BANC
nal CAN SERVICE

AeDHMETEC COMPOS AETERVALS. (2 METERS TO 206 METER DEOTH
SLAPLEMREPLNND WY 9 METER (RAOTRVAGS, TENCE) METERS TO natin
Ceri SemEMENTED eta TVAIE

OAT Mears (ere LEW waite

Rane MARNE FEEATETICAS
Senko 78.000 Pe
### SERVED: JANUARY 24, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### SOUTHWESTAIRLINES CO. FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 1259



### OBDER OFDISMISSAL 

### 1XH1 ,\'! 

### 25

Respondent filed a Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing which was served onDecember 28, 2012 according to the Certificate ofService. WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing having been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment- Service ListSERVICE LIST 

### ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 · Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 TEL: 202-385-8229 FAJ<: 202-493-5142


### ONE COPY Barry S. Brown, 

### Respondent's Counsel Associate General Counsel Southwest Airlines Co. P.O. Box 36611 Dallas, TX 75235-1611 TEL: 214-792-4263 Dane B. Jaques, 

### Respondent's Counsel DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 1767 International Drive, PH McLean, VA 22102 TEL: 703-336-8800 FAJ<: 703-336-8750 Yolanda Ayala Bernal, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch Southwest Region, ASW-7E2 Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 FortWorth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5070 FAJ<: 817-222-5945/5092 FDMS No. FAA-2012-1259 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430: 

### -2-The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536



### -3-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eufracio ARELLANO-SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10057.

D.C. No. CR-99-00061-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 2001 *.

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

*539Before ALARCÓN, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Because appellant Eufracio Arellano-Sandoval (“Sandoval”) was convicted of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a continuing offense, which commences with the illegal re-entry and is completed upon being found, *United States v. Ruelas-Arreguin,*219 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 1024, 121 S.Ct. 594, 148 L.Ed.2d 508 (2000), and because there was sufficient evidence to show that Sandoval committed part of the crime within two years of his release from prison, the district court properly added one point to his criminal history). U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(e).

Sandoval’s argument — that the district court erroneously believed it lacked the discretion to depart downward because he was subject to an INS detainer — fails because the INS detainer is inextricably tied to Sandoval’s status as a deportable alien, a factor which is “part and parcel” of the crime Sandoval committed and which has already been taken into account by the Sentencing Commission. *United States v. Martinez-Ramos,*184 F.3d 1055, 1057-58 (9th Cir.1999). The district court correctly determined that *Martinez-Ramos*precluded a downward departure on this basis.

*540Finally, Sandoval’s argument that a pri- or felony conviction is an element of the offense which must be pled in the indictment, and that the government’s failure to do so renders a sentence in excess of two years illegal is, as Sandoval concedes, foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523*U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). As we have recently noted, the Court expressly preserved *Almendarez-Torres*as a “narrow exception” to the general rule of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

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