alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

THOMAS GRAHAM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50230

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00490-DSF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Graham appeals from the 100-month sentence imposed following

his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 851(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

APR 11 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50230

Graham contends that the district court procedurally erred by applying the

career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)(3) based on previous

convictions resulting from nolo contendere pleas in the California state court. 

California courts treat a plea of nolo contendere as the equivalent of a guilty plea

conviction. See United States v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 1219, 1220 (9th Cir. 2010)

(per curiam). Because Graham was convicted of qualifying previous felonies, the

district court’s application of the career offender enhancement was not clearly

erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 15

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-121901, 333-12064, 333-88172, 333-112755 and 333-149657 on Form S-8 and Nos.
333-104147, 333-13806 , 333-145431 and 333-152119 on Form F-3, of our report,
dated March 29, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009, (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding the sale of the company's principal line of business), appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2009.

Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
June  30, 2010
No. 48585.

#### Protests 977722-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence disclosed that the bicycle horns are similar to those involved in *Spiegel Bros. Corp.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 194, C. D. 692), the record in which case was incorporated herein, and that the brass base shells are similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607), which record was also incorporated herein. Following the cited decisions the bicycle horns were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 371 as parts of bicycles, as claimed, and the brass base shells at 35 percent under paragraph 353.
No. 49732.

#### Protests 27706-K, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. et al. (Seattle).

*290Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). It was conceded that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that in the cited case, and since it contained salt it was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2007280EN.01001801.xml

| 23.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/18

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping and countervailing measures

(2007/C 280/08)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping and countervailing measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) and with Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (3).

2

3

The partial interim review which was initiated pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 in order to examine the existence and the level of certain subsidies is terminated accordingly (4).

4

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Polyester textured filament yarn (PTY) | India | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2093/2002 (OJ L 323, 28.11.2002, p. 1) | 29.11.2007 |
| Polyester textured filament yarn (PTY) | India | Countervailing duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2094/2002 (OJ L 323, 28.11.2002, p. 21) | 29.11.2007 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Polyester textured filament yarn (PTY)

India

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2093/2002 (OJ L 323, 28.11.2002, p. 1)

29.11.2007

Polyester textured filament yarn (PTY)

India

Countervailing duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2094/2002 (OJ L 323, 28.11.2002, p. 21)

29.11.2007

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 7.3.2007, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

2

(3)  OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

3

(4)  OJ C 210, 8.9.2007, p. 5.

4

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8229 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to establish additional payments 

for unborn livestock under the livestock indemnity payment program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. JACKSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to establish additional payments for unborn livestock under the livestock 

indemnity payment program. 

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 ‘‘Livestock Indemnity 

5 Program Enhancement Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘LIP En6 hancement Act of 2024’’. 

7 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR UNBORN LIVESTOCK. 

8 Section 1501(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 

9 U.S.C. 9081(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8229 IH

1 ‘‘(5) ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR UNBORN LIVE2 STOCK.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of unborn 

4 livestock death losses incurred on or after Janu5 ary 1, 2024, the Secretary shall make an addi6 tional payment to eligible producers on farms 

7 that have incurred such losses in excess of the 

8 normal mortality due to a condition specified in 

9 paragraph (1). 

10 ‘‘(B) PAYMENT RATE.—Additional pay11 ments under subparagraph (A) shall be made at 

12 a rate— 

13 ‘‘(i) determined by the Secretary; and 

14 ‘‘(ii) less than or equal to 85 percent 

15 of the payment rate established with re16 spect to the lowest weight class of the live17 stock, as determined by the Secretary, act18 ing through the Administrator of the Farm 

19 Service Agency. 

20 ‘‘(C) PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The amount of 

21 a payment to an eligible producer that has in22 curred unborn livestock death losses shall be 

23 equal to the payment rate determined under 

24 subparagraph (B) multiplied, in the case of live25 stock described in— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8229 IH

1 ‘‘(i) subparagraph (A), (B), or (F) of 

2 subsection (a)(4), by 1; 

3 ‘‘(ii) subparagraph (D) of such sub4 section, by 2; 

5 ‘‘(iii) subparagraph (E) of such sub6 section, by 12; and 

7 ‘‘(iv) subparagraph (G) of such sub8 section, by the average number of birthed 

9 animals (for one gestation cycle) for the 

10 species of each such livestock, as deter11 mined by the Secretary. 

12 ‘‘(D) UNBORN LIVESTOCK DEATH LOSSES

13 DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the term ‘unborn 

14 livestock death losses’ means losses of any live15 stock described in subparagraph (A), (B), (D), 

16 (E), (F), or (G) of subsection (a)(4) that was 

17 gestating on the date of the death of the live18 stock.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1982** 

ABDOU

- MALIK YACOUBOU ADAM , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Ellen L
. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 02387

- ELH )

Submitted : March 27, 2012 Decided: April 6, 2012

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Abdou

- Malik Yacoubou Adam, Appellant Pro Se. Michael S. Barranco, TREANOR, POPE & HUGHES, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Abdou

- Malik Yacoubou Adam seeks to appeal the district
court’s or ders granting in part and denying in part the parties’

cross - motions for summary judgment and denying his motion to expedite **.** This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral or ders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order s Adam seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s . Accordingly, we deny lea ve to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 pr ocess. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,033
<SECURITIES>                                    16,132
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                       651
<INVENTORY>                                      1,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,979
<PP&E>                                           8,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,973
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         52
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,432
<SALES>                                         16,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,916
<CGS>                                            9,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (55,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (55,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (55,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (13.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (13.61)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8308 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8308

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

    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 ``Nutria Eradication and Control 
Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 2003.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradication and Control 
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is amended by striking ``2025'' and 
inserting ``2030''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 3(a) of the Nutria Eradication 
and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(a)) is amended by striking 
```Secretary'),'' and inserting ```Secretary')''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### C. BURTON LYON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE M. BREWSTER & SON, INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Argued April 20, 1964

Decided May 4, 1964.

*Mr. M. Marvin Soperstem*argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Mortimer Wald,*attorney).

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*argued the cause for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

This workmen’s compensation case is here by reason of a dissent in the Appellate Division. The petitioner claimed that he sustained a heart injury as the result of two specific accident episodes. The fundamental issue was the factual one of the actual occurrence of the episodes, the resolution of which depended upon whether the petitioner him*248self or respondent’s witnesses were to be believed. The Division of Workmen’s Compensation found in petitioner’s favor. On appeal, the County Court, after the requisite trial *de novo*on the record, decided for respondent, as it could properly do. Two judges of the Appellate Division, upon the review and re-evaluation of the evidence called for by *Russo v. United States Trucking*Corp., 26 *N. J.*430 (1958), came to the same conclusion as the County Court. We see no reason to disturb that determination.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

*For affirmance*—• Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Sci-iettino and Haneman — 7.

*For reversal*— Hone.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13122-13123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-060-01-1020-PG]


Notice of Public Meeting; Central Montana Resource Advisory 
Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana Resource 
Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 12 & 13, 2007, at the Bureau of 
Land Management's Lewistown Field Office, 920 NE. Main Street, in 
Lewistown, Montana.
    The April 12 session will begin at 10 a.m. with a 30-minute public 
comment period. This meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 6:30 p.m.

[[Page 13123]]

    The April 13 meeting will begin at 8 a.m. with a 30-minute public 
comment period. This meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 3 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 15-member council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with 
public land management in Montana. At this meeting the council will 
discuss/act upon:

The minutes of their preceding meeting
The Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP
Livestock grazing regulations
The Bowdoin Draft Environmental Assessment
The Judith Moccasin Travel Plan Update
The development of a subgroup for the Judith Moccasin Travel Plan
The Judith Moccasin Forest Management treatments
Watershed plans in the Lewistown Field Office administrative area
Field managers' updates
The annual work plan for the RAC
The fee proposal for the UMRBNM Interpretive Center
A Forest Service fee proposal
Riparian/cottonwood projects
Weed management; and
Administrative details

All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written 
comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time 
allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of 
persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual 
oral comments may be limited.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Bailey, Lewistown Field Manager, 
Lewistown Field Office, P.O. Box 1160, Lewistown, MT 59457, 406/538-
1900.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
June Bailey,
Lewistown Field Manager.
 [FR Doc. E7-5007 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 29,335

March 7, 1975

*Lieutenant Walter A. Smith, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Commander Harvey E. Little,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

Tried for assault with intent to commit murder in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §934, the appellant, by exceptions and substitutions, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm, which is a violation of Article 128(b)(1), UCMJ, 10 USC § 928(b)(1). The post-trial review, however, after setting forth a brief synopsis of the offense charged, only notes the pleas and findings as "G/with exceptions.” Nowhere is there any clear statement or indication that the findings related to a far less serious offense. Because of this omission, there is more than a fair risk that the convening authority was misled to the prejudice of appellant. *United States v Boyd,*23 USCMA 90, 48 CMR 598 (1974). Consequently, the decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. A new review and action by the convening authority is ordered.

Judge Quinn did not participate in the decision of this case.
Before the First Division,

January 5, 1942

No. 46765.

#### Protests 77120-K, etc., of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held taxable at 3 cents per pound under section 701 on the entire weight as follows: Sapamine K. W. C., *53/100;*Lyofix D. E. C. (Prep. 6640 Cone. Pat.), *57/100;*Albatex P. O. C., 41/100; and Sapamine solid, 71/100-Protests sustained in part.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8308 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 694
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8308

                          [Report No. 118-849]

     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

  Mr. Harder of California (for himself, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. 
Valadao, Mr. Garamendi, and Mr. Panetta) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                           December 10, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

 

    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 ``Nutria Eradication and Control 
Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 2003.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradication and Control 
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is amended by striking ``2025'' and 
inserting ``2030''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 3(a) of the Nutria Eradication 
and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(a)) is amended by striking 
```Secretary'),'' and inserting ```Secretary')''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 694

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8308

                          [Report No. 118-849]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 10, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
No. 55992.

protest 172942-K (New York).

#### Alfred A. Mazer *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.