alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-5147

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ALEJANDRO DIAZ-GUTIERREZ, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00114-FDW-CH-1) 

Submitted: September 21, 2009 Decided: December 7, 2009 

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez was convicted of illegal 

reentry following removal from the United States, in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). The district court sentenced him 

to seventy-two months in prison. Diaz-Gutierrez appeals, 

contending that the admission of a warrant of deportation into 

evidence violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth 

Amendment. We affirm. 

 We review evidentiary rulings implicating the 

Confrontation Clause de novo. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 

F.3d 210, 253 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 

(2009). The Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial 

statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he 

was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior 

opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 

U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). “As Crawford and later Supreme Court 

cases make clear, a statement must be ‘testimonial’ to be 

excludable under the Confrontation Clause.” United States v. 

Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 268 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Davis v. 

Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)). 

 Documents “created for the administration of an 

entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or 

proving some fact at trial . . . are not testimonial.” 

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2539-40 (2009). 

2 
3 

A warrant of deportation is “not made in anticipation of 

litigation[.] . . . [I]t is simply a routine, objective 

cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter.” United States v. 

Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). We 

conclude, as have all Circuits to have considered the question, 

that a warrant of deportation is nontestimonial and therefore 

“not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.” 

See United States v. Burgos, 539 F.3d 641, 645 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(collecting cases). Therefore, the district court did not err 

in admitting the warrant of deportation into evidence. 

 We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### Brian L. HILVETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLD OF POWERSPORTS, INC., Mike Jackson, in his official capacity as an employee of World of Powersports, Inc., and Gary Brown, in his official capacity as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-4113.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 18, 2001.*

Decided July 6, 2001.

*428Before MANION, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

The Internal Revenue Code provides that an employer “making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax.” I.R.C. § 3402(a)(1). Brian Hilvety believes, however, that his employer must obtain his consent to withhold payroll taxes and instructed his employer to cease making such withholdings. After his employer refused to do so upon the advice of an IRS agent, Hilvety filed what he styled a “Petition for Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus, Injunction, Damages and Other Declaratory Relief.” In that “complaint,” Hilvety sought an order enjoining his employer and one its employees from withholding taxes, enjoining a named IRS agent from directing his employer to withhold taxes, mandating his employer to return his prior withholdings, and awarding $1,000,000 in damages under I.R.C. § 7433 for supposed unauthorized collection activities by the IRS. Before the defendants appeared or filed an answer, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the substantiality doctrine. We agree with the district court that Hilvety’s complaint is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and therefore was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship,*27 F.3d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir.1994).

That leaves the government’s motion for sanctions against Hilvety under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for filing a frivolous appeal. Hilvety filed a response and has filed his own motion for sanctions against the government. We agree with the government that Hilvety’s appeal is frivolous, and Hilvety’s response does not convince us otherwise. We therefore grant the government’s motion and impose sanctions in the amount of $2,000. *See Cohn v. Commissioner,*101 F.3d 486 (7th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, the government’s motion for sanctions is Granted, and Hilvety’s motion for sanctions is Denied.
Case No. 14,811.

#### UNITED STATES v. CLARKE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 158.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1818.

Insanity — Depence to Criminal Prosecution.

A prisoner should not be found guilty, if. at the time rf committing the act, he was in such a state of mental insanity, not produced by the immediate effects of intoxicating drink, as not to have been conscious of the moral turpitude of the act.

[See Case No. 14.810.]

The prisoner [Michael Clarke] was indicted for the murder of his wife by shooting her with a musket upon her return home in the evening from church.

Mr. Key, for prisoner, prayed the court to instruct the jury that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the prisoner, from long and settled habits of intemperance, had become disordered, both in body and mind, and subject to fits which affected both his mind and body, and that, by reason thereof, he was generally, and at all times, when not under the influence of liquor, of unsound mind, theh the prisoner cannot be found guilty of killing the deceased with 'malice.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh. Chief Judge.]

Which Instruction THE COURT

(nem. con.) refused to give, but instructed the jury that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the prisoner at the time of eom-mitting the act charged in the indictment, was in such a state of mental insanity, not produced by the immediate effects of intoxi-eating drink, as not to have been conscious of the moral turpitude of the act. they should find him not guilty. *

Verdict “Guilty.” Sentence of death.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 59 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 31, 2007.
Whereas engineers use their professional, scientific, and technical knowledge 
        and skills in creative and innovative ways to fulfill society's needs;
Whereas engineers have helped meet the major technological challenges of our 
        time--from rebuilding towns devastated by natural disasters to designing 
        an information superhighway that will speed our country into the future;
Whereas engineers are a crucial link in research, development, and demonstration 
        and in transforming scientific discoveries into useful products, and we 
        will look more than ever to engineers and their knowledge and skills to 
        meet the challenges of the future;
Whereas engineers play a crucial role in developing the consensus engineering 
        standards that permit modern economies and societies to exist;
Whereas the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report entitled ``Rising Above the 
        Gathering Storm'' highlighted the worrisome trend that fewer students 
        are now focusing on engineering in college at a time when increasing 
        numbers of today's 2,000,000 United States engineers are nearing 
        retirement;
Whereas the National Society of Professional Engineers through National 
        Engineers Week and other activities is raising public awareness of 
        engineers' significant, positive contributions to societal needs;
Whereas National Engineers Week activities at engineering schools and in other 
        forums are encouraging our young math and science students to see 
        themselves as possible future engineers and to realize the practical 
        power of their knowledge;
Whereas National Engineers Week has grown into a formal coalition of more than 
        70 engineering, education, and cultural societies, and more than 50 
        major corporations and government agencies;
Whereas National Engineers Week is celebrated during the week of George 
        Washington's birthday to honor the contributions that our first 
        President, a military engineer and land surveyor, made to engineering; 
        and
Whereas February 18 to 24, 2007, has been designated by the President as 
        National Engineers Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week and its 
        aims to increase understanding of and interest in engineering and 
        technology careers and to promote literacy in math and science; and
            (2) will work with the engineering community to make sure that the 
        creativity and contribution of that community can be expressed through 
        research, development, standardization, and innovation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador LARA-HERNANEZ, also known as Martin Uribe-Cnchola, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40928.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Salvador Lara-Hernanez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States. Lara-Hernanez argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. He acknowledges that this claim is reviewed for plain error only, but he contends that he can meet this standard.

The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Lara-Hernanez under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). Nevertheless, Lara-Hernanez has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *Mares,*402 F.3d at 521. Lara-Hernanez’s contention that this error is structural and gives rise to a presumption of prejudice is unavailing. *See United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297); *see also United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600-01, (5th Cir.2005). LaraHernanez has not shown that he should receive relief on this claim.

Lara-Hernanez’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional is, as he concedes, foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Lara-Hernanez has shown no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
From: hwalton35@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:23 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,

howard walton

Philadelphia, PA 19152
Before the Second Division,

September 16, 1959

No. 63351.

protests 181425-K, 189033-K, and 212716-K (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58668.

protest 167136-K (Ogdensburg).

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States,

*255Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *E. Dillingham, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 555), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1805 as pickets was sustained.
No. 67559.

#### A. V. Olsson Trading Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/21675 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 CCPA 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  225				Trade Date: 09/26/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  10/01/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement September 26, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QKH3   2.25%	10/15/04	     100%	        0.6%                Semi Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$1,305,000.00	$1,297,170.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   04/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $721.691 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: September 16, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: September 11, 2014 Meeting with Nevada Stakeholders Regarding Proposed 

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 11, 2014

to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Dave Emme, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP)

Jasmine Mehta, NDEP

John Candelaria, Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC)

John Davis, NPUC

Starla Lacey, NV Energy

Dennis Layborn Newmont Energy

John Felliger, Newmont Energy

EPA 

Brian Fisher, EPA OAP

Jeremy Mark, EPA OAP

Gabrielle Stevens, EPA OAP

Amy Zimpfer, EPA R9

Ben Machol, EPA R9

Ray Saracino, EPA R9

Attachment
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Thegold placers of the Fortymile, Birch Creek, and Fairbanks regions, Alaska**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:251
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957354
 
July 24, 2018
Before the Second Division,

April 16, 1964

No. 68458.

protests 61/13463, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Castelazo & Associates and De Witt Tool Equipment Co., L. A., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bandsaw blades similar in -all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard*& *Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 41, C.D, 2386), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
HON. JAMES P. DONOHUE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) No. CR05-334RSL 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) ORDER AUTHORIZING 

 v. ) FOREIGN TRAVEL 

 ) 

RAJINDER JOHAL, et. al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANT MANINDER SINGH KHATKAR requests permission to 

travel to Surrey BC, Canada from February 20th until February 

22nd to attend the spreading of ashes of his recently deceased 

brother, Ranjit Singh Khatkar, and so he can assist his 

deceased brother’s widow conclude her deceased husband’s 

financial affairs. PTS Officer Todd Skipworth has been 

contacted and does not object. Assistant United States 

Attorney Sarah Y. Vogel has been contacted and does not 

object. 

Accordingly the defense motion is GRANTED. The defendant 

may travel to Surrey BC Canada on February 20, 2006 and shall 

return to the United States on February 22, 2006. Upon his 

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 70 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 2
return to the United States the defendant shall promptly 

contact his pretrial services officer. 

All other conditions of the defendant’s release shall 

remain in effect. 

 Dated this 21st day of February 2006. 

 /s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 70 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2
From: rowe5344@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:56:07 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,

James Rowe

Saint Louis, MO 63137