alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3725

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

James Ricky Glasgow,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

 Submitted: May 23, 2014

Filed: June 5, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Glasgow directly appeals the sentence that the district court imposed

1

upon revoking his probation. For reversal, he argues that the sentence is

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas.
substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence--

which is well within statutory limits, and is also within the Chapter 7 advisory

Guidelines range applicable to revocation sentences--is not unreasonable. See United

States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences

are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also

grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**     I, Robert J. Messey, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved.]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                                                           /s/ Robert J. Messey   Robert J. Messey  Date:  May 15, 2006 Vice President
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2015-3659

Docket Number

2014-SW-050-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Aerometals Service Bulletin Aero-SB-1103, dated July 2, 2014.

Aerometals Aero-ICA-101 Supplemental Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, 

Revision NC, dated May 22, 2014.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321

Fort Worth, Texas 76177

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
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

RONNIE R. HILLERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2073 DFL JFM P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF

BAXTER DUNN, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 25, 2005, the magistrate judge signed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner on October 27, 2005 and which contained notice to

petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty

days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02073-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 02/08/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations served October 27, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 2/7/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02073-DFL -JFM Document 13 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 48538.

#### Protests 83407-K, etc., of J. Ossola Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question-consists of cheese similar in all material respects to the Romano and Provolone-cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith the claim for an allowance of 2)4 percent was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2225 GEB PAN P

vs.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file and serve an opposition

to defendants’ April 10, 2006 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time will be granted. Plaintiff also requests an extension of the deadline for

completion of discovery set in the court’s July 28, 2006 scheduling order. Plaintiff has failed to

make a showing sufficient to grant his request, in that he fails to specify the discovery he seeks

and why he requires additional time to obtain it. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to extend the

discovery deadline will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 23, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and 

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 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

serve an opposition to defendants’ April 10, 2006 motion to dismiss. Defendants’ reply, if any, 

shall be filed seven days thereafter.

3. Plaintiff’s August 23, 2006 request for an extension of the discovery deadline

is denied.

DATED: September 21, 2006.

14/mp

whit2225.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Intermountain 

Region 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

February 2003 

 

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

Appendices B - J
Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1 

APPENDICES B-J 

Table of Contents 

Appendices First 

Page 

Number 

 

Appendix B – Analysis Process ........................................................................ B-1 

B-1 Vegetation Modeling/Timber Suitability ......................................... 

B-2 Terrestrial Diversity and Viability.................................................... 

B-3 Aquatic Diversity and Viability........................................................ 

B-4 Botanical diversity and Viability...................................................... 

B-5 Roads Analysis ................................................................................. 

B-6 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.................................................... 

B-7 Scenery Management System Application....................................... 

B-8 Vegetation Cover Type Map ............................................................ 

B-9 Range Capability and Suitability...................................................... 

B-10 Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Assumptions .................................. 

B-11 Social and Economic Analysis ....................................................... 

B1-1 

B2-1 

B3-1 

B4-1 

B5-1 

B6-1 

B7-1 

B8-1 

B9-1 

B10-1 

B11-1 

Appendix C-1 Roadless Area Planning Processes and Evaluation of Roadless 

Areas for Wilderness ......................................................................................... 

C-1-1 

Appendix C-2 Evaluation of Roadless Area Values and Analysis of Effects 

on Individual Roadless Areas............................................................................ 

C-2-1 

Appendix D – Forestwide Management Direction............................................ D-1-1 

D-1 Management Prescription Categories............................................... 

D-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - ROS (Summer) ....................... 

D-3 Winter Recreation ............................................................................ 

D-4 Scenery Management System .......................................................... 

D1-1 

D2-1 

D3-1 

D4-1 

Appendix E – Vertebrate Wildlife Species of the Wasatch-Cache ................... E-1 

Appendix F – Botanical Resources ................................................................... F-1 

Appendix G – Oil and Gas Lease Issuing Process and Stipulations ................. G-1 

Appendix H – Noxious Weeds of the Wasatch-Cache............................. H-1 

Appendix I – Current Allotment Status and Allotment Status by Alternative .. I-1 

Appendix J – Management Indicator Species/Management Indicator 

Communities............................................................................. J-1 
Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4938 

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

114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, 

as the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLOYD B. OLSON POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 114 Center Street East in 

6 Roseau, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4938 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2007165EN.01000501.xml

| 19.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/5

---

Communication from the Commission in accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD

(2007/C 165/03)

| (1) | The Commission has renewed the term of office of two members of the Conciliation Body for a period of one year from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008:






  — | Mr Michael C. DOWLING (Chair of the Body), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission has renewed the term of office of two members of the Conciliation Body for a period of one year from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008:

—

Mr Michael C. DOWLING (Chair of the Body),

| — | Mr José Luis SAENZ GARCIA-BAQUERO (member of the Body), |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr José Luis SAENZ GARCIA-BAQUERO (member of the Body),

| (2) | The Commission has appointed Mr Robert BURIAN (AT), currently a substitute member, as a member of the Conciliation Body. His term of office will run from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has appointed Mr Robert BURIAN (AT), currently a substitute member, as a member of the Conciliation Body. His term of office will run from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2010.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4971]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than April 3, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. PSB Holding Corp., Preston, Maryland; to engage de novo through 
its subsidiary, Community Bank Mortgage Corporation, Easton, Maryland, 
in the origination and sale of residential mortgage loans to the 
secondary market, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 14, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-4971 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for  the  quarter  ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief Executive
Officer,  President,  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  and

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

Date:  November 7, 2005      By  /s/  Thomas  E.  Mills
                                 Thomas  E.  Mills
                                 President  &  Chief  Financial  Officer
* 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

August 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30186

Conference Calendar

 

COURTNEY SOLOMON MCKENZIE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

CARL CASTERLINE,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1280

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Courtney Solomon McKenzie, federal prisoner # 14900-057,

appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition. McKenzie argues that his claims fall

under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because that section

is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

imprisonment. His savings clause arguments are premised upon his

contention that the jury did not determine drug quantity and 

therefore his constitutional rights were violated when the
No. 03-30186

-2-

sentencing court determined quantity and used its quantity

determination when it sentenced McKenzie to life imprisonment.

“[T]he savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 applies to a

claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme

Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have

been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was

foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have

been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first [28

U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d

893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). While McKenzie does not cite Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), in his brief, his arguments

are nonetheless based on principles set forth in Apprendi. 

Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral

review, and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the test for

filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings clause of 28

U.S.C. § 2255. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, Tx.,

305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct.

1374 (2003).

McKenzie’s reliance on Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333

(1992), is also misplaced. Sawyer was decided before McKenzie

was convicted and did not legitimize drug-trafficking crimes. 

Therefore, McKenzie cannot use Sawyer to avail himself of the

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d

at 904. McKenzie has not met either prong of the Reyes-Requena
No. 03-30186

-3-

test, and thus he cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to bring his habeas

corpus claims challenging his federal sentence. See id.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

McKenzie’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Benitez, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 328]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in admitting identification testimony of a police officer who observed him sell heroin to an undercover officer during a "buy-bust” operation because the People failed to serve a CPL 710.30 notice advising defendant of such testimony. The court properly found that the officer’s identification of defendant at the prearranged meeting place a short time after the "buy-bust” occurred was merely confirmatory and, therefore, not subject to CPL 710.30 requirements *(see, People v Rodriguez,*79 NY2d 445, 449; *People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921, 922-923; *People v Reed,*197 AD2d 866, *lv denied*82 NY2d 901; *People v Guzman,*197 AD2d 705, *lv denied*82 NY2d 896). Thus, no *Wade*hearing was required *(see, People v Wharton, supra; People v Polanco,*179 AD2d 531, 532-533, *affd*80 NY2d 1012).

We agree with defendant that the People’s failure to disclose *966the tape recording in a more timely manner was improper. The People’s delay in complying with the provisions of CPL 240.20 constitutes reversible error, however, only when the delay substantially prejudices defendant *(see, People v Watson,*213 AD2d 996; *People v Herrera,*136 AD2d 567, 568, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 1007). The fact that the tape recording was not disclosed until approximately 10 days before trial, standing alone, does not establish that defendant was prejudiced in his defense *(see, People v Watson, supra).*Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose any sanctions. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.