alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 399 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin W. Malone, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed June 4, 2021. Nos. S-20-118, S-20-460.

supplemental opinion Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly R. Stratman , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Richard L. Boucher and Bradley H. Supernaw, of Boucher Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Kevin W. Malone, concerning our opinion in State v. Malone , 308 Neb. 929, 957 N.W.2d 892 (2021). We find no substantive merit to Malone’s motion and overrule it, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Postconvic tion Relief ” and the subheading “(b) Claim of Prosecutorial Mis conduct,” id. at 962, 957 N.W.2d at 920, we withdraw the second paragraph and substitute the following: Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/06/2021 08:10 AM CDT- 400 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399 The district court first rejected this argument as pro

cedurally barred. However, Malone had amended his motion to add an allegation that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the claims of pros

ecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court alternatively rejected Malone’s claim, reasoning that even if not procedurally barred, the claim failed to “set forth the facts and applicable law to establish an objection based on any of these prosecutorial [misconduct] claims would . . . have been successful.” We agree. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 781 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 31, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to 
reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance 
to service workers and firms, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 
or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered 
by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 
or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3920 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 7, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.229 Identified Miscellaneous Financial Claims - Part I** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50755

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ESTRADA-EUGENIO, also known as Alfredo Erasto EstradaEugenio,

Defendant-Appellant

_______________________________

Consolidated with 19-50763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ESTRADA-EUGENIO, also known as Juan Eugenio Medina, also 

known as Alfredo Estarada, also known as Alfredo Estrada Eugenio, also 

known as Alfredo Eugenio-Estrada, also known as Alfredo Estrada, also 

known as Alfredo Erasto Estrada-Eugenio, also known as Gerardo

Amezquita,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-254-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-110-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
No. 19-50755

c/w No. 19-50763

2

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Estrada-Eugenio appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 52 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. 

Additionally, he appeals the revocation of his supervised release related to a 

prior conviction for illegal reentry. Estrada-Eugenio argues that the 

enhancement of his sentence for his new illegal reentry offense pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increased the maximum sentence to 20 years of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, is unconstitutional 

because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing factor rather than as 

an element that must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond 

a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his argument that a prior conviction 

must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to 

preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review.

Estrada-Eugenio’s argument is indeed foreclosed. United States v. 

Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 

492 F.3d 624, 625–26 (5th Cir. 2007). Estrada-Eugenio has not raised any 

argument with respect to his revocation proceedings. Any such claim is thus 

deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgments are 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.

 Case: 19-50755 Document: 00515347254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C

. 20460



# JUL 6- Z011.

OFFICE t"lF AIR A 0 RADIATION

Mr. Joseph S. Hensel Director ofField Services RochesterPublic Utilities 4000 EastRiver Road, N.E. Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 DearMr. Hensel: Thank you for your letter ofJune 3,2011, requesting an extension ofthe public commentperiod for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oilfired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment period of60 days; that period would have ended on July 5, 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August4. While we are extendingthe comment period, we are not seeking to extend the November 16, 2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline. The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-dayperiod to reviewthe proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttnJatw/utility/utilitypg.html). along with much ofthepertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning ofthe formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. Itwill also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this commentperiod is significantly longer than statutorily required.

. Internel Address (URL)' nttp'/lwwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable' Prlnled w.th Vegetable 0.1 Based Inks on 100% Postconsurne, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour comments.

GmaMcCarthy Assistant Administrator
| Name                         |             | Jurisdiction |   |
|------------------------------|------------------|--------------|--------|
|                         |             |
| Ann Tanker Corporation       | Marshall Islands |
| Cathy Tanker Corporation     | Marshall Islands |
| Chris Tanker Corporation     | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Chartering, Inc.         | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Eagle, Inc.              | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Management AS            | Norway           |
| DHT Maritime, Inc.           | Marshall Islands |
| DHT Phoenix, Inc.            | Marshall Islands |
| London Tanker Corporation    | Marshall Islands |
| Newcastle Tanker Corporation | Marshall Islands |
| Regal Unity Corporation      | Marshall Islands |
| Sophie Tanker Corporation    | Marshall Islands |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO MONTES-BARRIENTOS, also known as Gerardo Montes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-513-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerardo Montes-Barrietos appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, arguing that the district court erred 

in sentencing him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) because he does not have a prior 

conviction for an aggravated felony. He asserts that in view of EsquivelQuintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017), his prior New Jersey 

conviction for endangering the welfare of a child does not qualify as sexual 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40024 Document: 00514718907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2018
No. 18-40024

2

abuse of a minor because it does not require contact with the minor. As 

Montes-Barrientos concedes, he did not raise this argument in the district 

court and, therefore, review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

We have previously held that the generic definition of sexual abuse of a 

minor does not require physical contact as psychological harm may 

nevertheless occur. See Contreras v. Holder, 754 F.3d 286, 294 (5th Cir. 2014). 

In Shroff v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2018), we stated that

Esquivel-Quintana did not abrogate that precedent because the Court focused 

on the age requirement and made no express holding about whether contact 

was required. Montes-Barrientos contends that the statement in Shroff was 

dicta. It was not as it was indirect response to the defendant’s argument in 

that case that contact was an element. Moreover, even assuming arguendo 

that there was error, the error would not be plain. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 

2009).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-40024 Document: 00514718907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Collin Woodley, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 991]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated December 23, 1991 *(People v Woodley,*178 AD2d 626), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered August 9, 1990, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benjamin S. MARKS, Jr.; H. Terry Hutchens; Connie Inverstine; UC Lending Corporation; Brenda Flinclum, Defendants-Appellees. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Watson; Officer Cook; Christine Duffany, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 01-1195, 01-1316.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2001.

Decided July 9, 2001.

Arthur O. Armstrong, pro se. Richard Thompson Wright, Greensboro, NC, for appellees.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals district court orders denying leave to reopen cases. In No. 01-1195, this Court entered an order on June 4, 2001, sanctioning Armstrong and noting that the appeal was frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and deny the motion for summary judgment. In No. 01-1316, we dismiss the appeal and deny the motions for summary judgment, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to add an additional party. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
13 CA ADC § 2263.7 Page 1

13 CCR s 2263. 7
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13 , s 2263. 7

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF

REGULATIONS
TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES
DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR V EHICLE FUELS
ARTICLE 1. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE
SUBARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE SOLD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1996 This database is current through 12/26/2003, Register

2003, No. 52.

s 2263.7. Multiple Notification Requirements.

Where a producer or importer is subject to multiple not ification requirements pursuant to sections 2264(a)(2)(A), 2264.2(a)(2), 2264.2(b)(2), 2265(a)(2), 2266(c) or 2266.5(b), the producer sha ll combine the notifications to the extent practicable.

< General Materials (GM)

- References, Annotations, or

Tables >

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43013.1, 43018 and 43101, Health and Saf ety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Poll ution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975). Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39002, 39003, 39010, 39500, 39515, 39516, 41511, 43000, 43013, 43013.1, 43016, 43018 and 4 3101, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975).

HISTORY

1. New section filed 2

- 28

- 96; operative 2

- 28

- 96 pursuant to Governm ent Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 96, No. 9).

2. Amendment of Note filed 8

- 3

- 2000; operative 9

- 2

- 2000 (Register 2000, No. 31).

13 CA ADC s 2263. 7
END OF DOCUMENT
No. 64648.

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States,

protest 60/580 (New York).

*304Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is a product chiefly used as 'an assistant in preparing or finishing textiles, the claim of 'the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:05-cr-00452-RSM Document 211-1 Filed 10/10/19 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

United States of America,

Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:05CR00452-4

Benson et al.,

Defendants.

-{PROP@SED] ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS

Upon the application of Paul Standfield, on behalf of Oak Point Partners, LLC (“Applicant”),
seeking payment of $40.45 representing funds previously unclaimed by Mervyn’s, and it appearing from
the application and supporting documentation that Applicant is entitled to the unclaimed funds, the Court
now orders that the Clerk disburse $40.45, as well as any future restitution payments, to Applicant at the
following address:

Oak Point Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 1033

Northbrook, IL.
60065-1033

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Get, 22,2049 sau a

UNITED STATES DISTRICTIMAGISTRATE ILBEE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING THIRD

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION - 1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DOMINI BOONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. C06-857RSL

ORDER GRANTING THIRD

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION

On July 17, 2006, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ordering Boone to file an

amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the Order. Since then, plaintiff has requested

and the Court has granted her two extensions of time to respond. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a third extension of time to respond to the Order to Show

Cause. (Dkt. #15). The motion is GRANTED in light of plaintiff’s pro se status and her

statement that she is attempting to retain counsel. However, because plaintiff has been granted

three extensions of time to respond, no additional extensions shall be granted absent a showing

of good cause. 

Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint no later than October 23, 2006 or face

dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to renote the Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #4) on the 

Case 2:06-cv-00857-RSL Document 16 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING THIRD

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION - 2 -2-

Court’s calendar for October 23, 2006.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00857-RSL Document 16 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Plant Sciences 
-  Sustainable Perennial Crops 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**Evaluation of Soil Quality Parameters (Sqp) in Tropical Soils and Assessment of Elemental Composition in Tropical Crops
**Location: Sustainable Perennial Crops**
**2005 Annual Report**
**4d.Progress report.**													This report serves to document research conducted under a Specific Cooperative Agreement between ARS and the University of Florida. Additional details of research can be found in the report for project number 1275-21220-201-00D, Biological and Chemical Disease Control and Development of Agronomic Systems for Cacao and Alternative Crops. This agreement provides funds for the elemental analysis of soil and plant samples from cacao field sites in Bahia, Brazil and Tarapoto, Peru. In addition, funds are provided for soil and plant samples from studies of the effects of abiotic stress factors on cacao growth in both greenhouse and field studies. This agreement is still in its first year of activity. To date, analysis has been carried out on soil and plant samples from plant nutrition studies and CO2 studies carried out in Beltsville. The data are being analysed.

    Project TeamBaligar, Virupax  
Project Annual Reports FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2005 
Related National Programs Crop Protection & Quarantine(304) Plant Diseases(303)  							Last Modified: 05/08/2009 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000875278
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             341,586
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   341,586
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,695,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,988,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,695,343
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    12,156
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       92,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   163,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (243,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (243,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (243,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0




</TABLE>