alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
offense for driving under the influence and his custody is based upon that

charge. Gaon fails to demonstrate that his present prosecution is a breach of his 1985 plea agreement as he has provided no documentary proof that a term of his 1985 plea agreement was that he could only be charged with a felony for a subsequent offense for a period of only 7 years.'

More importantly, Gaon's ex post facto argument is without merit. Although Gaon's 1985 felony conviction occurred before the 2005 enactment of the provision making a subsequent offense a felony regardless of the timing, see 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 193, § 3, at 607-08, 2 at the time he committed the instant offense, reference to NRS 484C.410(1)informed Gaon that he was subject to a felony prosecution for any drivingunder-the-influence offenses because of his prior felony convictions. See Dixon v. State, 103 Nev. 272, 274, 737 P.2d 1162, 1164 (1987) (holding that the third-offense felony provision was not an ex post facto law, despite the fact that the prior convictions antedated enactment of the provision, because the statute in effect at the time the defendant committed the subsequent offense informed him of the penalty); see also Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 30 (1981) (stating that the Ex Post Facto Clause "forbids the imposition of punishment more severe than the punishment assigned by law when the act to be punished occurred" (emphasis added));

1 The declarations provided by Gaon merely indicate the advice given in 1985, which was accurate given the law at the time of his prior offense,
see 1983 Nev. Stat., ch. 426, § 10, at 1070-71, and do not support an argument that the plea agreement contained a term that any subsequent felony prosecution was limited to 7 years.

2 The Legislature made the amendment applicable to all offenses committed before October 1, 2005. See 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 193, § 14, at 617.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A (enUnited States v. Katuna, 192 F.3d 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 1999) (providing

that recidivist statutes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if the recidivist statutes exist at the time of commission of the subsequent offense). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Law Offices of John G. Watkins Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A (4iP0
# C_2007116EN.01000501.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/5

---

Communication from the Commission concerning proposals to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community

(2007/C 116/02)

The Commission has on 7 May 2007 presented to the Council a proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (1) and a proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2).

1

2

The aim of the first proposal is to make the participation in the restructuring scheme more attractive. To that end, it is proposed to fix the percentage of the restructuring aid to be paid to growers and machinery contractors at 10 %, thereby removing the uncertainty resulting from the current possibility that a Member State might decide to set a higher percentage. Growers are instead to receive an additional payment.

It is further proposed to introduce for the marketing year 2008/2009 a possibility for growers to trigger the restructuring process by making a direct application for restructuring aid, provided that they renounce their delivery rights in relation to undertaking to which they have been bound by delivery contracts in the previous marketing year. As a consequence, the Member State should reduce the quota of the undertaking concerned correspondingly. The application of the proposed measure is however limited to a quota reduction of up to 10 % of the quota allocated to the undertaking concerned, and the Member State's acceptance of growers' applications should thus be based on a first-come-first-served list.

The amendments to Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 should start to apply as from the 2008/2009 marketing year. Considering that the deadline for applications for restructuring aid is 31 January 2008, sugar undertakings and growers are advised to carefully analyze their competitive position in the medium and long term and prepare for their eventual applications for restructuring aid in due time.

The second proposal concerns amendments to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 governing the instrument of withdrawal. This includes integrating into the Council Regulation the criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 (3) with regard to a possible further withdrawal in autumn 2007. It is also proposed to abolish the provision according to which traditional supply needs for refiners shall be reduced in case of a withdrawal. This would apply as from the marketing year 2007/2008.

3

---

(1)  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 48.

1

(2)  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2007, p. 20.

3

---
No. 45028.

#### Protests 39654-K, etc., of National Peat Moss Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50046

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS PASCUAL-DURAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-2380-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Pascual-Duran pleaded guilty to being illegally present in the

United States following deportation and to false impersonation in immigration

matters. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of

supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently. 

Pascual-Duran argues that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iv) on the basis that his prior

conviction under Colorado RevisedStatute § 18-6-403(3)(b.5) constituted a “child

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 27, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 11-50046 Document: 00511647104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2011
No. 11-50046

pornography offense.” He maintains that the Colorado statue of conviction is

broader than the federal child pornography statutes set forth in § 2L1.2 because

the Colorado statue criminalizes the possession of visual depictions that portray

minors observing explicit sexual conduct, whereas the federal statutes prohibit

only those visual depictions that portray minors actually engaging in sexually

explicit conduct. Pascual-Duran properly concedes that his argument is subject

to review for plain error because he did not raise the instant argument before the

district court.

To establish plain error, Pascual-Duran must identify a forfeited error that

is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United

States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Whether the conviction at issue constituted

a “child pornography offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iv) is an issue of

first impression in this circuit. Thus, if any error occurred, it was not clear or

obvious and does not warrant relief on plain error review. See United States v.

Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 376-78 (5th Cir. 2009); Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429. 

Pascual-Duran also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the

district court failed to consider the unwarranted disparity that exists between

him and defendants who were sentenced in jurisdictions in which “fast track”

programs are available. As Pascual-Duran correctly concedes, this argument is

foreclosed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 559-64 (5th Cir.

2008); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-50046 Document: 00511647104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2011
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8178 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to remove the 

requirements relating to registered apprenticeships. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of Illinois) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to remove the requirements relating to registered apprenticeships. 

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 ‘‘Apprenticeship Free5 dom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WIOA AMENDMENTS. 

7 (a) CAREER PATHWAY.—Section 3(7)(B) of the 

8 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8178 IH

1 3102(7)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘registered’’ and all 

2 that follows, and inserting a semicolon. 

3 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS.— 

4 Section 122(a) of the Workforce Innovation and Oppor5 tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3152(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) by amending paragraph (2)(B) to read as 

7 follows: 

8 ‘‘(B) an entity that carries out apprentice9 ships; or’’; and 

10 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘for so long 

11 as the corresponding program of the provider re12 mains registered’’. 

13 (c) YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM.—Section 171 of the 

14 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 

15 3226) is amended— 

16 (1) in subsection (b)— 

17 (A) by striking paragraph (10); and 

18 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (11) and 

19 (12) as paragraphs (10) and (11), respectively; 

20 and 

21 (2) by striking ‘‘registered’’ each place it ap22 pears. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-40012 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Ramon Alexis Castro-Rodriguez,
Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:21-CR-1638-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appo inted to represent Ramon Alexis Castro-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro-Rodriguez has not filed a

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 18, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40012 Document: 00516398065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022No. 22-40012

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issu e for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 22-40012 Document: 00516398065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 of IceWEB, Inc., SEC File No. 333-162,393, and the related prospectuses of
our audit report dated December 20, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of
IceWEB, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ deficit and cash
flows for the years then ended which is included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A, Amendment No. 2, of IceWEB, Inc. for the year ended September 30,
2010.





/s/ Sherb & Co., LLPCertified
      Public Accountants





Boca
Raton, Florida


February
10, 2011
March 21, 1952

No. 56487.

Suit 4714.

#### Henry Wedemeyer *v.*United States.

Reap. Dec. 8051. (Appeal dismissed. January 18, 1952.)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5036]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting 
on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on April 4, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b ( 
c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that 
relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-10 a.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-5036 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8233 

To amend the USAID Branding Modernization Act to require the sole use 

of United States flags and logos on articles of United States foreign 

assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. MAST (for himself, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. LAWLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the USAID Branding Modernization Act to require the sole use of United States flags and logos on 

articles of United States foreign assistance, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION TO BRANDING REQUIREMENT. 

4 Section 2 of the USAID Branding Modernization Act 

5 (22 U.S.C. 2401 note) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘is authorized 

7 to prescribe’’ and all that follows through ‘‘to appro8 priately identify’’ and inserting ‘‘shall require the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8233 IH

1 use of the United States flag to appropriately iden2 tify’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON BRANDING.—Notwithstanding 

5 subsection (a), no program identified through the use of 

6 the United States flag may bear the logo, insignia, or flag 

7 of any other country or any agency or instrumentality of 

8 any other country unless the President— 

9 ‘‘(1) determines that such recognition of the 

10 other country is in the national security interest of 

11 the United States; and 

12 ‘‘(2) submits to Congress a written justification 

13 for such determination not later than 30 days after 

14 the date on which such determination takes effect.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

 

I, Jason T. Shackelford, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of GTx, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date:  December 12, 2014

 
| /s/ Jason T. Shackelford                                                                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jason T. Shackelford                                                                                         |   |
| Senior Director, Accounting and   Corporate Controller and Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                                                                                |   |

 

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4958 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture to withdraw a final determination relating to energy 

efficiency standards for housing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. 

RICKETTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

and the Secretary of Agriculture to withdraw a final 

determination relating to energy efficiency standards for 

housing, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR HOUS4 ING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Housing and 

6 Urban Development and the Secretary of Agriculture— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4958 IS

1 (1) shall withdraw the final determination an2 nounced in the notice of final determination entitled 

3 ‘‘Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

4 Construction of HUD- and USDA-Financed Hous5 ing’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33112); 

6 (2) may not take any action or use any Federal 

7 funds to implement or enforce the final determina8 tion described in paragraph (1) or any substantially 

9 similar final determination; and 

10 (3) shall revert energy efficiency standards for 

11 covered programs under the final determination de12 scribed in paragraph (1) to the energy efficiency 

13 standards required before the final determination. 

14 (b) ACTION BY ADDITIONAL AGENCIES.— 

15 (1) DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.— 

16 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not take any 

17 action or use any Federal funds to implement or en18 force a final determination that is substantially simi19 lar to the final determination described in subsection 

20 (a)(1). 

21 (2) FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY.— 

22 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Di23 rector of the Federal Housing Finance Agency may 

24 not finalize, implement, or enforce a determination 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4958 IS

1 or rule relating to energy efficiency standards for 

2 single and multifamily housing. 

3 (c) CONSIDERATION OF STATE STANDARDS.—Sec4 tion 109(d) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

5 Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12709(d)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

9 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(3) not fewer than 26 States have adopted an 

12 energy efficiency code or standard that meets or ex13 ceeds the requirements of the revised code or stand14 ard.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the Second Division,

July 21, 1939

No. 41838.

#### Protest 61690-G of Salem Shawing (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the Normandy laces in question are similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7310 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

YOLANDA VIOLA BURGESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-00-162-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yolanda Viola Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly A. Riley, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Viola Burgess seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her motion for relief from

judgment, which the district court characterized as a Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69

(4th Cir. 2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Burgess has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Horace A. Grout, *Respondent, v.*Alice H. Cary, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barker, J.
#### FRITZ BOROWSKY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ERNEST G. BOROWSKY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs.*Williams, *Willette & Faccone*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Burton, *Quackenboss & Axelrod*and *Mr. Lawrence Grossman*for the respondents.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.