alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE ANGEL AMAYA-RAMOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30171

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00164-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Angel Amaya-Ramos appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-30171

Amaya-Ramos contends that the district court committed procedural error by

rejecting without adequate explanation his argument in favor of leniency. The

district court did not err, as it listened to Amaya-Ramos’s mitigation arguments,

and then imposed a within-Guidelines sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Amaya-Ramos also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

He contends that the 16-level prior conviction sentencing enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is per se unreasonable and resulted in an unreasonable

sentence in this case.

 Amaya-Ramos’s argument that the 16-level sentencing enhancement is per

se unreasonable fails. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054

(9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th

Cir. 2008) (policy-based argument against the Guidelines must be asserted on the

ground that its operation in a particular case results in a sentence that is

unreasonable under § 3553(a)). 

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors, the

sentence in this case is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
```

[112th Congress Public Law 214]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1588]]

Public Law 112-214
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To allow the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to determine the requirements for 
    membership in that tribe. <<NOTE: Dec. 20, 2012 -  [H.R. 3319]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP DETERMINED BY TRIBE.

    Section 3 of Public Law 95-375 (25 U.S.C. 1300f-2) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``Sec. 3.  For the purposes of section 1 of this Act, membership of 
the Pascua Yaqui Tribe shall consist of any United States citizen of 
Pascua Yaqui blood enrolled by the tribe.''.

    Approved December 20, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3319:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 112-675 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Sept. 19, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 209.9 Filing.

All materials filed with FRA or any FRA officer in connection with a proceeding under subpart B, C, or D of this part shall be submitted in duplicate to the Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, (RCC-30), Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, except that documents produced in accordance with a subpoena shall be presented at the place and time specified by the subpoena.

[54 FR 42906, Oct. 18, 1989, as amended at 74 FR 25171, May 27, 2009]
§ 228.331 First aid and life safety. ( a ) An adequate first aid kit must be maintained and made available for occupants of a camp car for the emergency treatment of an injured person.
( b ) The contents of the first aid kit shall be placed in a weatherproof container with individual sealed packages for each type of item, and shall be checked at least weekly when the camp car is occupied to ensure that the expended items are replaced. The first aid kit shall contain, at a minimum, the following: ( 1 ) Two small gauze pads (at least 4 × 4 inches);
( 2 ) Two large gauze pads (at least 8 × 10 inches);
( 3 ) Two adhesive bandages;
( 4 ) Two triangular bandages;
( 5 ) One package of gauge roller bandage that is at least 2 inches wide;
( 6 ) Wound cleaning agent, such as sealed moistened towelettes;
( 7 ) One pair of scissors;
( 8 ) One set of tweezers;
( 9 ) One roll of adhesive tape;
( 10 ) Two pairs of latex gloves; and
( 11 ) One resuscitation mask.
( c ) Each sleeping room shall be equipped with the following: ( 1 ) A functional portable Type ABC fire extinguisher; and
( 2 ) Either a functional smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide alarm, or a functional combined smoke-carbon-monoxide alarm.
( d ) Each camp car consist shall have an emergency preparedness plan prominently displayed so all occupants of the camp car consist can view it at their convenience. The plan shall address the following subjects for each location where the camp car consist is used to house railroad employees or MOW workers: ( 1 ) The means used to be aware of and notify all occupants of impending weather threats, including thunderstorms, tornados, hurricanes, floods, and other major weather-related risks;
( 2 ) Shelter-in-place and emergency and evacuation instructions for each of the specific threats identified; and
( 3 ) The address and telephone number of the nearest emergency medical facility and directions on how to get there from the camp car consist.
-----Original Message----- 

From: JoAnnMacd@comcast.net [mailto:JoAnnMacd@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 6:26 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 02, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

JoAnn Macdonald 

730 Falconer Road 

Joppa, MD 21085
§ 240.303 Operational monitoring requirements. ( a ) Each railroad to which this part applies shall, prior to FRA approval of its program in accordance with § 240.201, have a program to monitor the conduct of its certified locomotive engineers by performing both operational monitoring observations and by conducting unannounced operating rules compliance tests.
( b ) The program shall be conducted so that each locomotive engineer, except as provided in § 240.129(h), shall be given at least one operational monitoring observation by a qualified supervisor of locomotive engineers in each calendar year.
( c ) The program shall be conducted so that each locomotive engineer, except as provided in § 240.129(h), shall be given at least one unannounced, compliance test each calendar year.
( d ) The unannounced test program shall: ( 1 ) Test engineer compliance with: ( i ) One or more provisions of the railroad's operating rules that require response to signals that display less than a “clear” aspect, if the railroad operates with a signal system that must comply with part 236 of this chapter;
( ii ) One or more provisions of the railroad's operating rules, timetable or other mandatory directives that require affirmative response by the locomotive engineer to less favorable conditions than that which existed prior to initiation of the test; or
( iii ) Provisions of the railroad's operating rules, timetable or other mandatory directives the violations of which by engineers were cited by the railroad as the cause of train accidents or train incidents in accident reports filed in compliance with part 225 of this chapter for the preceding year;
( 2 ) Be conducted that so that the administration of these tests is effectively distributed throughout whatever portion of a 24-hour day that the railroad conducts its operations;
( 3 ) Be conducted so that individual tests are administered without prior notice to the locomotive engineer being tested; and
( 4 ) Be conducted so that the results of the test are recorded on the certificate and entered on the record established under § 240.215 within 30 days of the day the test is administered.
[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 74 FR 68184, Dec. 23, 2009; 85 FR 81316, Dec. 15, 2020]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0495.html[7/20/2015 3:45:38 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-32og

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0495

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Perry

Address:

1475 Reo Ave

Lincoln Park, MI, 48146

Email: moondreamer2@yahoo.com

General Comment

I don't need the government telling me how to use my 401k... Stay out for my business...Thank you
§ 32.205 What must I include in my drug-free workplace statement? You must publish a statement that— ( a ) Tells your employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in your workplace;
( b ) Specifies the actions that you will take against employees for violating that prohibition; and
( c ) Lets each employee know that, as a condition of employment under any award, he or she: ( 1 ) Will abide by the terms of the statement; and
( 2 ) Must notify you in writing if he or she is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace and must do so no more than five calendar days after the conviction.
§ 219.605 Submission and approval of random testing plans. ( a ) *Plan submission.* ( 1 ) Each railroad must submit for review and approval a random testing plan meeting the requirements of §§ 219.607 and 219.609 by email to *FRA-DrugAlcoholProgram.email@dot.gov .* The submission must include the name of the railroad or contractor in the subject line. A railroad commencing start-up operations must submit its plan no later than 30 days before its date of commencing operations. A railroad that must comply with this subpart because it no longer qualifies for the small railroad exception under § 219.3 (due to a change in operations or its number of covered employees) must submit its plan no later than 30 days after it becomes subject to the requirements of this subpart. A railroad may not implement a Federal random testing plan or any substantive amendment to that plan before FRA approval.
( 2 ) A railroad may submit separate random testing plans for each category of regulated employees (as defined in § 219.5), combine all categories into a single plan, or amend its current FRA-approved plan to add additional categories of regulated employees, as defined by this part.
( b ) *Plan approval notification.* FRA will notify a railroad in writing whether its plan is approved. If the plan is not approved because it does not meet the requirements of this subpart, FRA will inform the railroad of its non-approval, with specific explanations of any required revisions. The railroad must resubmit its plan with the required revisions within 30 days of the date of FRA's written notice. Failure to resubmit the plan with the necessary revisions will be a failure to submit a plan under this part.
( c ) *Plan implementation.* Each railroad must implement its random testing plan no later than 30 days from the date of FRA approval.
( d ) *Plan amendments.* ( 1 ) Each railroad must submit to FRA a substantive amendment to an approved plan at least 30 days before its intended effective date. A railroad may not implement any substantive amendment before FRA approval.
( 2 ) Each railroad must provide a non-substantive amendment to an approved plan (such as the replacement or addition of service providers) to the FRA Drug and Alcohol Program Manager in writing (by letter or email) before its effective date. However, FRA pre-approval is not required.
( e ) *Previously approved plans.* A railroad is not required to resubmit a random testing plan that FRA had approved before March 4, 2022, unless the railroad must amend the plan to comply with the requirements of this subpart. A railroad must submit new plans, combined plans, or amended plans incorporating new categories of regulated employees (*i.e.,* mechanical employees) for FRA approval at least 60 days after March 4, 2022.
[81 FR 37937, June 10, 2016, as amended at 87 FR 5736, Feb. 2, 2022]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0823.html[7/21/2015 3:30:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-u5qy

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0823

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: James Craighead

Address:

501 Dexter St

Denver, CO,

Email: Chiku47844@gmail.com

General Comment

I am against the policy the president is trying to shove down our throats.
-----Original Message----- 

From: vicki.michels@seattle.gov [mailto:vicki.michels@seattle.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:53 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Vicki Michels 

19402 Aurora Ave.N. Shoreline, WA 

Shoreline, WA 98133
IB

Union Calendar No. 200

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2418

[Report No. 104–393]

To improve the capability to analyze deoxyribonucleic acid.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995

Mr. MCCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

DECEMBER 11, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To improve the capability to analyze deoxyribonucleic acid.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DNA Identification

5 Grants Improvement Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 2418 RH

1 SEC. 2. DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS.

2 Paragraph (22) of section 1001(a) of the Omnibus

3 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is amended to read

4 as follows:

5 ‘‘(22) There are authorized to be appropriated

6 to carry out part X—

7 ‘‘(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;

8 ‘‘(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;

9 ‘‘(C) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

10 ‘‘(D) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and

11 ‘‘(E) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.’’.

12 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

13 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DNA Identification

14 Grants Improvement Act of 1995’’.

15 SEC. 2. DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS.

16 Paragraph (22) of section 1001(a) of the Omnibus

17 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is amended to read as

18 follows:

19 ‘‘(22) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

20 out part X—

21 ‘‘(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;

22 ‘‘(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;

23 ‘‘(C) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

24 ‘‘(D) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and

25 ‘‘(E) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.’’.
3

•HR 2418 RH

1 SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON GRANT USE.

2 Section 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law

3 Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by adding at the end

4 the following:

5 ‘‘(d) DNA PROFILES PROHIBITED.—In no event shall

6 DNA identification records contained in this index be com7 piled or analyzed in order to formulate statistical profiles

8 for use in predicting criminal behavior.’’.

9 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

10 Effective on the date of the enactment of the Violent

11 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, section

12 210302(c)(3) of such Act is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’

13 after ‘‘Section 1001’’ and after ‘‘3793’’.
Union Calendar No. 200

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2418

[Report No. 104–393]

A BILL

To improve the capability to analyze

deoxyribonucleic acid.

DECEMBER 11, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commitordered to be printed tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2111

To designate the Social Security Administration’s Western Program Service

Center located at 1221 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, California, as the

‘‘Francis J. Hagel Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 1995

Mr. MILLER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Social Security Administration’s Western

Program Service Center located at 1221 Nevin Avenue,

Richmond, California, as the ‘‘Francis J. Hagel Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FRANCIS J. HAGEL BUILDING.

4 The Social Security Administration’s Western Pro5 gram Service Center located at 1221 Nevin Avenue, Rich6 mond, California, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Francis J. Hagel Building’’.
2

•HR 2111 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘Francis J. Hagel Building’’.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 August 13, 2020

b0811

Order 

Clerk

August 13, 2020

161299 & (7)

MARIO MONTANO,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 161299

COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to dismiss the complaint for superintending 

control is GRANTED. The case is dismissed.

We conclude that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious. MCR 7.316(C). The 

plaintiff is ordered to pay the Clerk of this Court $1,000 within 28 days of the date of this 

order. We direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept any further filings from the plaintiff 

in any non-criminal matter until he has made the payment required by this order. We 

further direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept any documents from the plaintiff that 

require a fee unless the plaintiff pays the fee at the time of submission.
April9,2014 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0855 

Case No. 2012-GL-25-0058 

To His Honor, Judge J.E. Sullivan; 

RECEIVED 

APR 1 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

1n regards to the above mentioned case, I respectfully request a hearing to take place in 

Cleveland, Ohio. At this hearing I also request that Ms. Chris Paucho, the Flight Standards 

District Office Chief, also be present, along with FAA counsel Kate Barber as well as my 

representing council, if necessary. I do not feel that the previous options offered by Ms. Barber 

presented adequate opportunity to effectively answer the allegations presented against me. 

In regards to the FAA's Complaint dated January 30, 2013, my Answers are as follows: 

*Paragraph 1) Admit 

*Paragraph 2) Denied 

*Paragraph 3) Denied 

*Paragraph 4) Lack of Knowledge 

*Paragraph 5) Denied 

*Paragraph 6) Denied 

It has always been my sole intent to promote the sport of skydiving, as well as aviation, 

in a positive and safety conscious manner. I feel I have done this by having completed in excess 

of 8,000 Tandem and AFF skydives as a USP A licensed instructor with never an accident, 

incident nor complaint filed against me. I would, again, request a hearing in my home state so as 

to defend my integrity as well as my safety consciousness in this matter. 

Respectfully, 

David 

~a~ A. Draves 
April9, 2014 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0855 

Case No. 2012-GL-25-0058 

CERTIFIED and FIRST CLASS MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., SW 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Ms. Kate Barber 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 
'~ ) ' ..
#### Theodore D. Yorks and others, Respondents, v. J. Franklin Peck and another, Appellants, Impleaded, etc.

Jndgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Corlett, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
#### § 299.313 Track geometry; performance based.

(a) For all track of Class H4 and above, vibration in the lateral and vertical directions measured on the carbody of a vehicle representative of the service fleet traveling at a speed no less than 10 km/h (6.2 mph) below the maximum speed permitted for the class of track, shall not exceed the limits prescribed in the following table:

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)

| Carbody acceleration limits1 2 | |
| --- | --- |
| Lateral vibration3 | Vertical vibration3 |
| ≤ 0.35 g peak-to-peak | ≤ 0.45g peak-to-peak |
| 1 sec window | 1 sec window |
| excluding peaks < 50 msec | excluding peaks < 50 msec |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Carbody accelerations in the vertical and lateral directions shall be measured by accelerometers oriented and located in accordance with [§ 299.337(c)(3)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-299.337#p-299.337(c)(3)). | |
| 2 Acceleration measurements shall be processed through an LPF with a minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz. The sample rate for acceleration data shall be at least 200 samples per second. | |
| 3 Peak-to-peak accelerations shall be measured as the algebraic difference between the two extreme values of measured acceleration in any 1-second time period, excluding any peak lasting less than 50 milliseconds. | |

(b) If the carbody acceleration requirements are not met on a segment of track, the segment of track is to be reclassified to the next lower Class of track for which it does meet the requirements of this part.