alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeremiah SHEPPARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest C. ROE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-55261.

D.C. No. CV-98-09691-MMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Jeremiah Sheppard, a California State prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for receiving stolen property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. See *Dows v. Wood,*211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). Sheppard bears the burden of showing that the state court adjudication of the merits of his claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Williams v. Taylor,*529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); *Van Tran v. Lindsey,*212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2000) (defining “unreasonable application” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error).

*583Sheppard contends that his right to due process was violated because he received an increased sentence based on a 1966 conviction for which no sentencing transcript exists. We disagree because clearly established federal law provides that a presumption of finality attaches to final judgments and accordingly, the mere unavailability of a transcript is insufficient to show that a defendant was denied constitutional rights. *Parke v. Raley,*506 U.S. 20, 29-30, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992)(stating that *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) *does not prohibit a state court from presuming that a final judgment of conviction offered for purposes of sentence enhancement was validly obtained).*

Moreover, because Sheppard’s contention rests on the fact that the transcript of his plea hearing was destroyed five years after his 1966 conviction, bolstered by only his own declaration, he cannot, without more, show that his guilty plea was illegally obtained. *Id.*The district court, therefore, correctly concluded that the California court’s decision, was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of federal law. *See Williams,*120 S.Ct. at 1523.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-306-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

February 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 22, 2007, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 14, to 
be effective April 1, 2007.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's customers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81c7c4d3c2ceefede8efe4d2f4f1f1eef3f5c1e7e4f3e2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3980 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 432 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 432

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate the Nulhegan River 
 and Paul Stream in the State of Vermont for potential addition to the 
    national wild and scenic rivers system, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nulhegan River and Paul Stream Wild 
and Scenic River Study Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT.

    (a) Designation for Study.--Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(147) Nulhegan river and paul stream, vermont.--The 
        following segments:
                    ``(A) The approximately 22-mile segment of the main 
                stem of the Nulhegan River from the headwaters near 
                Nulhegan Pond to the confluence with the Connecticut 
                River, and any associated tributaries (including the 
                North, Yellow, Black, and East Branches).
                    ``(B) The approximately 18-mile segment of Paul 
                Stream from the headwaters on West Mountain to the 
                confluence with the Connecticut River, and any 
                associated tributaries.''.
    (b) Study and Report.--Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(24) Nulhegan river and paul stream, vermont.--Not later 
        than 3 years after the date on which funds are made available 
        to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary of the Interior 
        shall--
                    ``(A) complete the study of the Nulhegan River and 
                Paul Stream segments in Vermont described in subsection 
                (a)(147); and
                    ``(B) submit to the appropriate committees of 
                Congress a report describing the results of such 
                study.''.

            Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 
      16), 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 432

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate the Nulhegan River 
 and Paul Stream in the State of Vermont for potential addition to the 
    national wild and scenic rivers system, and for other purposes.
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the Incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Kollmorgen Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-21379, 333-21409, and
333-41585) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-34707) of our report, dated January 24,
1998, except as to the information presented in Note 19 relating to the Tender
Offer termination for which the date is February 2, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Kollmorgen Corporation, as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

                                            /s/  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.



Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997
No. 49166.

#### Protests 105549-G/12630, etc., of European Agencies Co., Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted record showed that the bale ties in question are similar to those involved in *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47). They were therefore held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1604 as claimed.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Kenneth Dean Dawson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1793 GEB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

US Government,

Defendant.

-oOoApril 8, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,

explained the deficiencies, and gave plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint correcting those deficiencies. The time

allowed for amendment now has expired and plaintiff has not filed

an amended complaint.

Accordingly, I hereby recommend that this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 2:04-cv-01793-GEB-PAN Document 16 Filed 11/23/05 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

2

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01793-GEB-PAN Document 16 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Cyco.net,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation
            of the Company.


                   By: /s/ Richard A. Urrea            May 14, 2004
                       --------------------
                   Richard A. Urrea
                   President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4559 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4559

   To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made within a 
                        certain period of time.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made within a 
                        certain period of time.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Officer John Barnes Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.

    Section 1205 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10285) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(f) Not later than 270 calendar days after receiving a claim 
filed under this subpart, the Bureau shall inform the claimant of the 
Bureau's determination as to the claimant's benefit eligibility.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of K-telInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Dennis Ward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(4)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By                                                  |  /s/ Dennis  Ward |
|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Dennis Ward                                              |
| Chief  Financial Officer (*principal financial officer*) |
| *Director*                                               |
| September  30, 2002                                      |

 

----
Before the Third Division,

September 12, 1945

No. 50463.

#### Protests 989741-G, etc., of Asia Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon*Co. (32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter “A” on the invoices was held free of duty under paragraph 1705 as kelp, and that represented by the items marked with the letter “B” on the invoices was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 55260.

#### Edmond Weil, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 143511-K, etc. (New York).

*365Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
The Ho norable Pasco M. Bowman became Chief Judge of the United State s 1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 18, 1998. The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United Sta tes District Court for 2 the Northern District of Iowa. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-4356

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Gary John Cates, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 14, 1998 Filed: May 7, 1998

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 1

_____________ PER CURIAM. Gary John Cates, who pleaded guilty to several federal crimin al charges and was sentenced thereon, appeals. His sole contention is that the District Court erred i n 2 declining to make a finding regarding his objection to information set forth in th e presentence report to the effect that a 1985 conviction for aggravated battery was based on allegations of rape. As the District Court noted in ruling that it would not strike this-2-

materia lfrom the report, it was not necessary for sentencing purposes to resolve th e factual dispute raised by Cates's objection, for it had no effect on the length of Cates's sentence. Contrary to Cates's argument, the court's response to his objection satisfied Federa lRule of Criminal Procedure 32(c). See United States v. Beatty , 9 F.3d 686 , 689 ( 8th Cir. 1993). Because no error of law appears, the judgment of the Distric t Court is
AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 6705.

#### ANGELO MAGGIORE vs. E. S. LOCHBAUM.

Syllabus.

1. A suit to contest a primary election under Act 198 of 1912 (See. 6, p. 390) is seasonably instituted if the petition is ■ filed in the District Court within two days after the promulgation of the result of the election. It is not required that the Judge sign the order of summons, or that said sunn mons be served within said delay.

2. In computing the delay of two days above prescribed, Sundays are to be excluded.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 2143. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

F. A. Middleton, E. A. O’Sullivan, for plaintiff and appellant.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE G-ODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*440This primary election contest, arising under Act 198 of 1912, was dismissed by trial 'Court on the plea of prescription of two days prescribed by Section.6 of said act (p. 390).

The result of the election was promulgated on a Saturday and the suit was filed on the following Tuesday, that is, more than two calendar days thereafter; while the order summoning the defendant was not signed by the Judge until Wednesday, nor served on the defendant until Thursday.

The suit was seasonably brought if the petition was filed within the two days prescribed. It is not required that the Judge sign the order of summons, nor that said summons be served with said delay. Any other construction would in most cases be destructive of the right to contest granted by the statute.

Vial v. Elfer, 120 La., 673, 680.

Thornhill vs. Ware, 131 La., 458.

The, case of Ficklin vs. New River Drainage District, 133 La., 203, which is cited to the contrary, interprets a statute upon a different subject from the case at bar, and. the interpretation there given leads to no unreasonable consequences.

While the suit was not filed until more than two calendar days had elapsed, it was still in time, since where the delay allowed is less than a week, Sundays are always excluded from the computation.

State vs. Michel, 52 An.,. 493.

Fellman vs. Ins. Co., 116 La., 732.

Johnson vs. Murphy, 124 La., 143.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed-from be reversed, that the plea of prescription be over*441ruled and the case remanded to the trial Court to be proceeded with according to law.

Opinion and decree, April 7th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, April 7th, 1916.

Writ denied, April 14th, 1916.

Reversed and remanded.
Before the Third Division,

February 15, 1950

No. 54029.

#### Hin Yuen Hing and James Loudon & Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6637-R (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the record it was apparent that no one made any attempt to ascertain whether the invoice values were the proper dutiable values, although one of the partners of the importing firm was in Hong Kong at the time of entry and could have obtained information as to the market prices there. It has been held that “the entrant of merchandise owes a duty to inform himself as to the correctness of his representations as to the value of his merchandise and that a showing of indifference to its proper value does not meet the requirements of satisfactory proof under the statute.” *R. W. Gresham*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 70), *National Silk Spinning Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 24, C. A. D. 119), and *United States*v. *H. S. Dorf & Co. of Pa., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 29, C. A. D. 392), cited. On the record presented it was held *371that petitioners have not sustained the burden of proving that in making the entry such good faith was exercised as is required by the statute. *Kachurin Drug Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 356, C. A. D. 41), followed. The petition was therefore denied.
126 STAT. 2388 PUBLIC LAW 112–246—JAN. 10, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3869: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–246 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 East 

Capitol Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders McMath 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SIDNEY ‘‘SID’’ SANDERS MCMATH POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders McMath 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders McMath Post Office Building’’. 

Approved January 10, 2013. 

Jan. 10, 2013 

[H.R. 3869] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4080 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.