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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30213

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

PETER PELTIER,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:96-CR-60016-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Peter Peltier, federal prisoner # 09259-035, appeals the district court’s

denial of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief. Peltier is currently serving a sentence of

262 months for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

In his challenge to the district court’s judgment, Peltier argues that United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applies to proceedings involving

sentencing reductions under § 3582(c)(2) as it does in original sentencing

proceedings. He argues that although he was sentenced as a career offender

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-30213

2

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court had discretion to reduce his sentence

under § 3582(c)(2).

We review Peltier’s arguments de novo. See United States v. Doublin, 572

F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 517 (2009). Section

3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence where

the sentencing range is later lowered by the Sentencing Commission, “if such a

reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.

1997). Eligibility for consideration under § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an

amendment that lowers the applicable guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,

cmt. n.1(A) (2008).

Peltier’s guidelines range was not derived from the quantity of crack

cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career offender status. The

district court thus was correct in concluding that a reduction was not permitted

under § 3582(c)(2). See § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A). We have rejected Peltier’s Booker

arguments. See Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238-39. “[T]he concerns at issue in Booker

do not apply in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.” Id. at 238. Although the

Guidelines must be treated as advisory in an original sentencing proceeding,

Booker does not prevent Congress from incorporating a Guideline provision “as

a means of defining and limiting a district court’s authority to reduce a sentence

under § 3582(c).” Id. at 239 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1211.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

HEALTH 

Food and Feed 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHINA 

Signed at Beijing December 11, 2007 

 

 

 with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CHINA 

Health: Food and Feed 

 Agreement signed at Beijing December 11, 2007; 

 Entered into force December 11, 2007. 

 With annex.
Solo (https://3drobotics.com/kb/solo/) (https://3drobotics.com/kb/solo/)

Flight Safety

Drones can be hazardous if operated incorrectly. If you are new to drones, we

recommend learning on a mini-drone to first learn the ropes. Make safety your

first priority, and always follow these best practices.

Maintain Altitudes Under 400 ft. Maintain Altitudes Under 400 ft.

Never fly above 400 ft. (120 m), doing so places you in restricted airspace that

can interfere with manned aircraft.

Proper Handling Proper Handling

!
Spinning propellers can cause serious injury; always disarm before handling

the propellers. It is important to make sure that you and any spectators keep a

safe distance from the drone. Don’t take off with the drone facing towards you

or fly directly over your head.

Never fly within 5 miles of any airport. Never fly within 5 miles of any airport.

To prevent conflict between your drone and manned aircraft, always fly at

least five miles (eight kilometers) away from all airports and other locations

where manned aircraft are in use. Research your area to find all areas of

restricted airspace near you.

Never fly above people. Never fly above people.
Avoid flying above people at all costs. Always maintain at least 100 feet (30

meters) between your drone and people, vehicles, and buildings. This rule is

important for flying near crowds, buildings, and roads due to potential hazards

from unplanned landings.

Keep clear of stadiums. Keep clear of stadiums.

Recently mandated by the FAA

(http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3621.html), drones and other

unmanned aircraft are strictly forbidden from flying near or above stadiums.

Avoid inclement weather. Avoid inclement weather.
 (https://3drobotics.com)

Flying in inclement weather will result in abnormal flight behavior. It is best to

wait for calm skies to avoid damaging your drone and surrounding property.

Was this helpful? Yes (?p=13458&help=1&_wpnonce=b1ec6226ca) 

No (?p=13458&help=0&_wpnonce=461e043c68)
3D ROBOTICS – LIFE AFTER GRAVITY

News (https://3drobotics.com/drone-blog/)

Software (https://3drobotics.com/software/)

Store (https://store.3drobotics.com)

" (http://facebook.com/3drobotics) # (http://twitter.com/3drobotics) $

(http://instagram.com/3drobotics) % (http://youtube.com/3drobotics) +

(https://plus.google.com/+3DRobotics/about)

GENERAL

About (https://3drobotics.com/about/)

Careers (https://3drobotics.com/careers/)

Community (https://3drobotics.com/community/)

Terms (https://3drobotics.com/terms/)

Open Source (https://3drobotics.com/open-source-policy/)

CONTACT US

Press Center (http://press.3dr.com)

Education (https://3drobotics.com/3du/)

Resellers (https://3drobotics.com/resellers-2/)

Contact Us (https://3drobotics.com/contact/)
© 2015 3D Robotics, Inc | Drone (/solo-drone) and UAV technology.

SUPPORT

Register (https://3drobotics.com/solo-registration/)

Support Home (https://3drobotics.com/support/)

Account (https://store.3drobotics.com/account)

Helpful Links (https://3drobotics.com/helpful-links/)

FIND A RESELLER

 (/solo-resellers/)
(Reap. Dec. 8546)

#### Freedman & Slater, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 756469.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchan*533dise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the unit invoice values net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the unit invoice values, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Opinion filed February 12, 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____



### No. 11

- 1 3

- 00 068

- C V

_____ _

_____



### MAIN STREET

- SANTA ANA, LLC

, Appellant

V.

MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 385 th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV46637

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A ppellant

, Main Street

- Santa Ana, LLC

, ha s filed in this court a n agree d

m otion to dismis s its appeal with prejudice

. Appellant states that the parties “have

reached a settlement agreement of all issues on appeal

, ” and Appellant requests

that we dismiss th is appeal with prejudice

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

February 12, 2015 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey , J.
TREY HARRIS , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1476

_____________________________/ Opinion filed October 31, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County

. Timothy A. Register , Judge

. Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
In this Anders * appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence , but
remand for the trial court to correct two scrivener’s errors in the order revoking his

* Anders v . California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.2 probation. Although Appellant was on probation for one count of grand theft, the
revocation order state s that he was on probation for two counts of grand theft. Additionally, whil e the State alleged , and the trial court orally pronounced its finding , that Appellant violated Condition s 5 and 6 of his probation by committing one new law offense and associating with a person engaged in criminal activity , respectively, the revocation order states that he violated his probation “[b]y violating Condition 5 by committing new law offenses.” We, therefore, remand for the trial
court to correct the revocation order. See Williams v. State , 138 So. 3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 201 4) ( affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal , but remanding for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation) ; see also Nickolas v. State , 66 So. 3d 10 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; Washington v. State , 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)

. Appellant need not be present. See Williams , 138
So. 3d at 1103.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED

. LEWIS , KELSEY , and M.K. THOMAS , J J

. , CONCUR.
** **

**Exhibit32(a)**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe Form 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,2007, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief Executive Officer of FrederickCounty Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledgeand belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007,fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                  |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                      |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|                                       |        |        |  |

 

----
# C_2007307EN.01001501.xml

| 18.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/15

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 429th meeting of 9 July 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/E-2/39.141 — Fiat

(2007/C 307/11)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between Fiat and its authorised service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between Fiat and its authorised service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Fiat, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Fiat, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that Fiat should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that Fiat should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
Before the Third Division,

May 11, 1960

No. 64159.

protests 58/9835, etc. (New York).

#### Halsey Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ALEXANDER P. YANKO, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK, 

Respondent, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus 

seeking either the dismissal of a criminal case or the granting of a new trial. 

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 

and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole 

discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner 

bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such 

relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy 

at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 

P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). 

Although petitioner provided a brief affidavit wherein he 

references a jury trial and the allegedly improper admission of evidence, he 

has not provided this court with any record or documentation in support of 

his claims and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See 

NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix 

containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth 

rzz zoo 

No. 84798 

FILED 

JUN 4 2022 

A. BROWhI 
Parraguirre 

Pidad.w? r C.J. 

in the petition"). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our 

intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Further, to the extent that 

petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through counsel of record. 

Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See 

NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

A-Visa,0 J. 

Stiglich 

cc: Alexander P. Yanko 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0( I t147A V•;". 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On December 23, 2005 defendants Adams, Hough, Moncayo and Gonzales filed a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On February 17, 2005, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a

motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motion

and finds that it has merit. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 84 Filed 03/23/06 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

2

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the December 23, 2005, motion to

dismiss filed by defendants Adams, Hough, Moncayo and Gonzales be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

whit2276.46

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 84 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4624 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on the 

status and timeline for completion of the redesigned Airborne Hazards 

and Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a 

report on the status and timeline for completion of the 

redesigned Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airborne Hazards and 

5 Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) 2.0 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4624 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON AIRBORNE HAZARDS AND OPEN BURN 

2 PIT REGISTRY 2.0. 

3 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

5 submit to Congress a report on the current status and 

6 timeline for when the redesigned Airborne Hazards and 

7 Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0 will be completed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Page 1 of 6
 

Page 2 of 6
 

Page 3 of 6
 

Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2657 GEB PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 17, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Solomon was returned unserved because

“unable to locate.” Plaintiff must provide additional information to serve these defendants. 

Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information through discovery, the California Public Records

Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to plaintiff. If access to the

required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed October 14, 2005;

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Solomon; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 14, 2005; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: May 10, 2006.

/mp:001

elmo2657.8e

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2657 GEB PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the October 14, 2005 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 3