alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30004

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH J. BROUSSARD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:10-CR-159-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith J. Broussard was charged with mailing a threatening

communication to an employee of the Social Security Administration. Broussard

threatened to physically injure and forcibly rape the recipient of the

communication. Broussard sought a downward departure to a sentence of

probation because he suffers from epileptic seizures and was frustrated because

he was not granted disability benefits. At sentencing, the district court noted

and rejected the arguments for a downward departure. The district court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
No. 11-30004

considered the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. Section § 3553(a) and the

Sentencing Guidelines. After contemplating these factors, the district court

choose a non-guidelines sentence, above the recommended range, and sentenced

Broussard to serve five years in prison. 

On appeal, Broussard does not challenge any procedural aspect of his

sentence, but he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

considering the § 3553(a) factors and his physical problems. We review

sentencing decisions for reasonableness and use the abuse of discretion standard

when determining whether a given sentence is in fact reasonable. United States

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A non-guidelines

sentence is unreasonable if “it (1) does not account for a factor that should have

received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or

improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the

sentencing factors.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The district court made no procedural errors and stated permissible

reasons for its choice of sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 710. Broussard has

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in going above the

recommended range and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
# CE2009041EN.01009001.xml

| 19.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 41/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 41/90

---

P6_TA(2008)0002

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 95/50/EC as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission (COM(2007)0509 — C6-0278/2007 — 2007/0184(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0509), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0509),

| — | having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0278/2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0278/2007),

| — | having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0506/2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0506/2007),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 March 31, 2003 Quarterly Report of Pacific Sands, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stan Paulus, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on my knowledge:

     (i)  the Report, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit,
          fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and,

     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Registrant.


Dated: June 16, 2003                                 /s/ Stan Paulus
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Stan Paulus
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1871 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1871

To designate certain counties in the State of Arizona as high-intensity 
                        drug trafficking areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2009

 Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate certain counties in the State of Arizona as high-intensity 
                        drug trafficking areas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Southwest Border Narcotics Reduction 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF HIGH-INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS IN 
              ARIZONA.

    The counties of Apache, Gila, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, Graham, 
and Greenlee in the State of Arizona are designated as high-intensity 
drug trafficking areas and shall be part of the Southwest Border high-
intensity drug trafficking area under the program administered by the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTOINE GAUSE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cr-00123-BO-1; 

7:18-cv-00189-BO)

Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antoine Gause, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Gause seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gause has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gause’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
§ 286.35 What are proper uses of Tribal Family Assistance Grant funds? ( a ) Tribes may use TFAGs for expenditures that: ( 1 ) Are reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF, including, but not limited to, the provision to low income households with assistance in meeting home heating and cooling costs; assistance in economic development and job creation activities, the provision of supportive services to assist needy families to prepare for, obtain, and retain employment; the provision of supportive services to prevent of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and assistance in keeping families together, or
( 2 ) Were an authorized use of funds under the State plans for Parts A or F of title IV of the Social Security Act, as such parts were in effect on September 30, 1995.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 78468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANTITRUST DIVISION


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 5, 2006, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Network Centric Operations 
Industry Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, ASELSAN Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret, 
A.S., Ankara, TURKEY; Finmeccanica, Roma, ITALY; SGI, Mountain View, 
CA; MilSOFT Yazilim Teknolojileri A.S., Ankara, TURKEY; U.S. Department 
of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency, Falls Church, VA; and 
Telephonics Corporation, Farmingdale, NY have been added as parties to 
this venture.
    Also, Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA; Anteon Corporation, 
Fairfax, VA; Systems Integration & Development, Inc., Rockville, MD; 
and OrderOne Networks, Orangeville, Ontario, CANADA have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture. In addition, Marconi Communications Federal, 
Inc. has changed its name to Ericsson Federal, Inc., Columbia, MD.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Network Centric Operations Industry 
Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2004, Network Centric Operations Industry 
Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the 
Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 2, 
2005 (70 FR 5486).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 6, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58006).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-9929 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# CE2010016EN.01025101.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 16/251 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 16/251

---

Amendment of the single CMO Regulation *

P6_TA(2008)0559

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘single CMO Regulation’) (COM(2008)0489 — C6-0314/2008 — 2008/0156(CNS))

(2010/C 16 E/43)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0489), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0489),

| — | having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0314/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0314/2008),

| — | having regard to Rule 51 and Rule 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 51 and Rule 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0368/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0368/2008),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

p1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147529

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147529

COA: 312452

Montcalm CC: 2007

- 009015

- FC

LOUIS ALAN LATHROP

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3

, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 35 

Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 

as the ‘‘Arlington House National Historic Site’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2023 

Mr. KAINE introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery as the ‘‘Arlington House National Historic Site’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That— 

4 (1) the site administered by the National Park 

5 Service and dedicated as a memorial to Robert E. 

6 Lee pursuant to the joint resolution of June 29, 

7 1955 (Public Law 84–107; 69 Stat. 190), as amend8 ed by the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 (Public 

9 Law 92–333; 86 Stat. 401), shall after the date of 

10 the enactment of this joint resolution be redesigVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:15 Jun 22, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ35.IS SJ35

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 35 IS 

1 nated and known as the ‘‘Arlington House National 

2 Historic Site’’; 

3 (2) any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

4 document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the site referred to in paragraph (1) shall 

6 be considered to be a reference to the Arlington 

7 House National Historic Site; and 

8 (3) the joint resolution of June 29, 1955 (Pub9 lic Law 84–107; 69 Stat. 190), and the joint resolu10 tion of June 30, 1972 (Public Law 92–333; 86 Stat. 

11 401), are repealed. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
§ 800.603 Disclosure of information. ( a ) *Disclosure to certain entities.* OPM may provide information relating to the activities of MSP issuers or State-level issuers to a State Insurance Commissioner or Director of a State-based Exchange.
( b ) *Conditions of when to disclose.* OPM shall only make a disclosure described in this section to the extent that such disclosure is: ( 1 ) Necessary or appropriate to permit OPM's Director, a State Insurance Commissioner, or Director of a State-based Exchange to administer and enforce laws applicable to an MSP issuer or State-level issuer over which it has jurisdiction, or
( 2 ) Otherwise in the best interests of enrollees or potential enrollees in MSP options.
( c ) *Confidentiality of information.* OPM will take appropriate steps to cause the recipient of this information to preserve the information as confidential.
§ 681.18 What type of discovery is authorized and how is it conducted? ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within ten days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 681.22.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if he or she finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 681.22.
( e ) *Depositions.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed by § 681.8.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
ERICA GRANT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4318 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 22, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Keith W. Upson, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
§ 79.35 The record. ( a ) The hearing will be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts may be obtained following the hearing from the ALJ at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of duplication.
( b ) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the ALJ and the authority head.
( c ) The record may be inspected and copied (upon payment of a reasonable fee) by anyone, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 79.24.