alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision *

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

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ORLANDO CLEMENT, AKA Rab,

AKA Seal C,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50189

D.C. No.

2:05-cr-00814-

GAF-3

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 8, 2013*

Filed July 22, 2013

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, William C. Canby, Jr.

and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion
2 UNITED STATES V. CLEMENT

 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

**

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

SUMMARY

**

Criminal Law

Summarily affirming a criminal judgment, the panel held

that the defendant’s claims are foreclosed by United States v.

Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir. 2013), which held that

mandatory minimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 did

not apply in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceedings to

defendants sentenced before the Act was enacted.

The panel denied the defendant’s petition for initial

hearing en banc without prejudice to renewal as a petition for

rehearing en banc. The panel noted that since United States

v. Augustine was decided, an inter-circuit spit has emerged.

COUNSEL

Davina T. Chen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal

Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, California, for

Defendant-Appellant.

Jean-Claude Andre and Curtis A. Kin, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Los Angeles,

California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
UNITED STATES V. CLEMENT 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A review of the record indicates that the questions raised

in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further

argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858

(9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Appellant’s

claims are foreclosed by United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d

1290 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, appellee’s motion for

summary affirmance is granted.

Appellant’s petition for initial hearing en banc is denied

without prejudice to renewal as a petition for rehearing en

banc. In United States v. Augustine, this court held that

mandatory minimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

(“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, did not apply

in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceedings to defendants

sentenced before the FSA was enacted. Id. at 1295. Since

United States v. Augustine was decided, an inter-circuit split

has emerged. See United States v. Blewett, Nos. 12-5226, 12-

5582, 2013 U.S. App. WL 2121945 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013)

(holding defendants sentenced prior to the enactment of the

FSA are entitled to reductions).

AFFIRMED.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic EducationChange StrategiesCooperative EducationEducation Work RelationshipEducational ChangeEducational ImprovementEducational NeedsEducational PracticesEducational TrendsExperiential LearningIntegrated CurriculumPostsecondary EducationRelevance (Education)Secondary EducationTrend AnalysisVocational EducationWork Experience

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: WRBACON258@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:19 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wilfred BACON sR.

Blackstone, MA 01504
#### Joseph Hillenbrand, Executor, etc., v. Herman B. Lanfer, Respondent, Impleaded, etc , and Morris Pinner, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Brady, J.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Cuisine Solutions, Inc.

Alexandria, Virginia



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-60616 and 333-92167) of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. of our report dated September 18, 2007, except for the effects of the restatements discussed in Note 2 which are as of September 17, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appear in this Form 10-K/A.



| |  |                     
| |  | --------------------
| |  | /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
| |  | BDO Seidman, LLP    





Bethesda, Maryland

September 17, 2008
From: ninga2@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:20:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Rodefeld

Saint Louis, MO 63137
No. 346.

#### Santa Maria Shipowning & Trading Co., S. A., et al. *v.*Panteloglou et al.

*Edward B. Joachim*for respondents on the motion.

*Robert C. Thomson, Jr.*for petitioners, in opposition.

(Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied, *ante,*p. 889.) The motion for damages and to stay issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals is denied.
IV 

House Calendar No. 258 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1399 

[Report No. 110–816] 

Providing for proceedings during the period from August 1, 2008, through 

September 4, 2008. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2008 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for proceedings during the period from August 

1, 2008, through September 4, 2008. 

1 Resolved, That when the House adjourns by operation 

2 of the fifth section of this resolution on any legislative day 

3 during the period from August 1, 2008, through Sep4 tember 4, 2008, it shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on 

5 the third constitutional day thereafter. 

6 SEC. 2. The Speaker may appoint Members to per7 form the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1399 RH 

1 addressed by the first section of this resolution as though 

2 under clause 8(a) of rule I. 

3 SEC. 3. On each legislative day during the period ad4 dressed by the first section of this resolution, the Speaker 

5 may dispense with legislative business (other than any 

6 proceedings that may arise under clause 6 of rule XV). 

7 SEC. 4. On each legislative day during the period ad8 dressed by the first section of this resolution, the Journal 

9 of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 

10 as approved. 

11 SEC. 5. Unless the Speaker determines otherwise 

12 under section 3 of this resolution, on each legislative day 

13 during the period addressed by the first section of this 

14 resolution, after the third daily order of business under 

15 clause 1 of rule XIV (and any proceedings that may be 

16 sought under clause 6 of rule XV), the House shall stand 

17 adjourned pursuant to the first section of this resolution. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 258 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1399 

[Report No. 110

–816] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for proceedings during the period from 

August 1, 2008, through September 4, 2008. 

JULY 31, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
----

**Filed      Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

|                                                        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| **For                the Period: 11/19/2007 to 11/26/2007** |
|                                                             |

| **Coupon** | **Interest**                       | **Maturity** | **Callable** | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price1** | **Yield2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
|------------|------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------------------|------------|------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|
| 4.200%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 11/15/09     | NO           | YES§                | 100.00     | 4.200%     | A2          | A           | 14912HGU8 |
| 5.050%     | Monthly(†)                   | 11/15/14     | 11/15/09*    | YES§                | 100.00     | 5.103%     | A2          | A           | 14912HGV6 |
| 5.700%     | Semi-Annual(†††) | 11/15/22     | 11/15/10***  | YES§                | 100.00     | 5.700%     | A2          | A           | 14912HGW4 |
| 5.800%     | Monthly(†)                   | 11/15/27     | 11/15/11*    | YES§                | 100.00     | 5.871%     | A2          | A           | 14912HGX2 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior      sale.*

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL FURNESS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 35 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of September, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
No. 462, Misc.

#### Hutcherson *v.*California.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
No. 547.

#### Reinsurance Agency, Inc., *v.*Liberty National Insurance Co.

*W. H. Langroise*for petitioner.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.16

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March
13, 2003 for the financial statements of Trinet Investments in High-Tech Ltd. (The
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002. We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (File No. 333-61895 and File No.
333-55970), of our report dated March 13, 2003, which included an explanatory paragraph as
to the cease of operations of the Company, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Ampal  American Israel Corporation incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Brightman Almagor &
Co.Certified Public Accountants A member of Deloitte Touche

March 13, 2005



---

---
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationHeritage EducationHigher EducationLanguage ProficiencyNative Language InstructionNative SpeakersSecond Language InstructionSecond Languages

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: onerighteousdude@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Chris Simmons

Woods Cross, UT 84087
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer



I, Calvin Reed, the chief executive officer of Peak International Limited (the Company), certify for the
purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 13, 2006 |  | /s/ Calvin Reed        
|                        |  | Calvin Reed            
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Jane A. Murray and others, Respondents and Appellants, v. Gardner B. Charlick and others, Respondents and Appellants.

— Judgment .modified as directed in opinion and affirmed as .modified, with costs of the several parties to be paid out of the fund. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
From: tomlmoto@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Thomas Leestma

Grand Rapids, MI 49508
[Cite as Brock v. Niemeyer, 130 Ohio St.3d 80, 2011-Ohio-4704.] 

BROCK, APPELLANT, v. NIEMEYER, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as Brock v. Niemeyer, 130 Ohio St.3d 80, 2011-Ohio-4704.] 

Complaints—Jurisdiction—Failure to invoke original or appellate jurisdiction of 

court of appeals—Dismissal of complaint affirmed.

(No. 2011-0470—Submitted September 7, 2011—Decided September 21, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, No. 5-11-03. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the 

motion of appellant, Dennis R. Brock, to allow his cause to proceed. Brock’s 

complaint alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to R.C. 2921.52(E). 

Brock’s complaint invoked neither the original nor the appellate jurisdiction of 

the court of appeals. Section 3(B)(1) and (2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. We 

also deny appellant’s motions for leave to correct and to direct the appellate court 

to attach requested documents. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Dennis R. Brock, pro se. 

______________________
EXHIBIT 32.1



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                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 Annual Report on Form 10K of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and
CEO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

   1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

   2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
       in all material respects, the financial condition and
       results of operations of the Corporation as of and for the
       period covered by the Report.






Date: March 8, 2007            /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                               _________________________
                               J. Gerald Bazewicz
                               President and
                               Chief Executive Officer




                                72