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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20937

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GASPAR VASQUEZ-AREGUIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-145-1

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

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gaspar Vasquez-Areguin (“Vasquez”) appeals the 75-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

being found in the United States after deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

was an element of the offense that should have been charged in

the indictment. 

Vasquez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
No. 00-20937

2–

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000).

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Vasquez’s

argument is foreclosed. 

Vasquez contends also that his indictment should have been

dismissed because it failed to allege any general intent to enter

the United States. Vasquez did not challenge the indictment in

the district court; therefore, it is construed in favor of

validity unless it was so defective that, by any reasonable

construction, it failed to charge the offense of conviction. 

United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 373 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 528 U.S. 871 (1999). Vasquez’s indictment “fairly

imported that his reentry was a voluntary act” and satisfied the

constitutional requirements of a valid indictment. United States

v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236, 239 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2000).

Vasquez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Before the First Division,

August 24, 1942

No. 47462.

#### Protest 16859-K of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

*395Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the “Alba-tex POC pat.” was held dutiable at 4Hoo of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight and merchandise invoiced as Silvatol I at 2Koo of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight under section 701, as claimed.
1

Farquharson, Chenise

From: Mark W Roberts <markroberts@eia-global.org>

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 4:46 PM

To: Newberg, Cindy

Cc: lisahandy@eia-global.org; cstarr@eia-global.org; lchandler@eia-global.org; 

Farquharson, Chenise; Sheppard, Margaret

Subject: Re: EIA SNAP Petition - follow up

Hello Cindy, 

Happy New Year! Hope that you got a good break. 

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our petition with you and look forward to assisting the EPA and the SNAP Program 

continue to change to status of HFCs which are no longer needed as alternatives to ozone depleting substances as there are 

alternatives available that pose less of a risk to human health and the environment. We look forward to receiving EPA’s formal 

response to our petition. If you feel that more information would be helpful to support any portion of our petition, please let 

us know so we can provide supplemental information for your use as expeditiously as possible. 

Mark 

Mark W. Roberts 

Senior Counsel and International Policy Advisor 

Environmental Investigation Agency 

122 Kirkland Drive 

Stow, MA 01775 

Tel: +1.978.298.5705 

Cell: +1.617.722.8222 

Skype: Mark.W.Roberts1 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message originates from counsel for the Environmental Investigation Agency 

(“EIA”). The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be a confidential attorneyclient communication or may otherwise be privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message, regardless of 

the address or routing, is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal 

in error and any review, use, distribution, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 

message in error, please delete this e-mail and all files transmitted with it from your system and immediately notify 

EIA by sending a reply e-mail to the sender of this message. Thank you.

From: Cindy Newberg <Newberg.Cindy@epa.gov> 

Date: Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:38 PM 

To: Mark W Roberts <markroberts@eia-global.org> 

Cc: "lisahandy@eia-global.org" <lisahandy@eia-global.org>, Christina Starr <cstarr@eia-global.org>, Lowell Chandler 

<lchandler@eia-global.org>, "Farquharson, Chenise" <Farquharson.Chenise@epa.gov>, "Sheppard, Margaret" 

<Sheppard.Margaret@epa.gov> 

Subject: EIA SNAP Petition - follow up 

Dear Mark,

I would like to thank you for the useful exchange we had on December 17, 2015 concerning the petition filed by 

Environmental Investigation Agency-US (EIA) on October 6, 2015. The petition was filed pursuant to section 612(d) of 
2

the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 82.184(b)(3). We found the discussion quite useful and appreciated the opportunity to 

clarify a few points. We will follow up shortly with our formal response to your petition. In the meantime, if you have 

any additional questions, please give me a call at the number below. 

Happy New Year!

Best,

Cindy 

Cindy Newberg, Chief

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch

SPD/OAP/OAR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

+1 202-343-9729
No. 57396.

protest 158670-K (San Francisco).

#### Fleischmann Distilling Corporation v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that three eases of whisky were not imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the three cases of whisky which were short landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4494



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVON NELSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00592

- GLR

- 1 )

.
Submitted : June 24, 2021 Decided: June 28, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Brent E. Newton, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting United States Attorney, Christopher M. Rigali, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFIC E OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Davon Nelson appeals from his convictions for fentanyl conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute f entanyl, which were entered pursuant to his guilty plea. On appeal, he asserts that he received ineffective assistance when his attorney failed to adequately explain the terms of his written plea agreement. Nelson contends that he has raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance, and he seeks a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Finding Nelson’s claim should instead be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we affirm. It is well established that, “[u]nless an attorney’s ine ffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls , 821 F.3d 502, 507

- 08 (4th Cir. 2016). Absent clear

- cut evidence, we have determined that any claims of ineffective assi stance “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. at 508. Here, Nelson concedes that the record does not conclusively support his assertions. Nonetheless, Nelson urges this court to adopt the holdings of the First and D.C. Circuits that, on direct appeal, “colorable” claims of ineffective assistance may be remanded to the trial courts for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Marquez

- Perez , 835 F.3d 153, 165 & n.6 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Knight , 824 F.3d 1105, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2016). However, the majority of other circuits have rejected this approach and found that “post

- conviction proceedings are generally the proper avenue for ineffective assistance claims.” United States v. Gooding, 594 F. App’x 123, 131 (4th Ci r. 2014) (No. 13

- 4995) (citing cases). We decline to alter our long

- standing practice of3 requiring that, absent “conclusive evidence,” ineffective assistance claims be brought in a § 2255 motion in the first instance. See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3 d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
##### **Exhibit31.2**

 

##### **CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Douglas C. Wride, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-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 thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (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 toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; 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.

 

 
| Date:  | March 12, 2004 |   |                    |
|--------|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |           |   |                    |
|   |           |   |                    |
|   |           | By:    | /s/ DOUGLAS C. WRIDE    |   |
|   |           |   | Douglas C. Wride        |
|   |           |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Slip Op. 01 - 15



## UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

__________________________________________ : CAMARGO CORREA METAIS, S.A., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : **Before: MUSGRAVE, JUDGE** : Consol. Court No. 91-09-00641 THE UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : : and : : AMERICAN ALLOYS, INC., ELKEM METALS : CO., GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC., : SIMETCO, INC., and SKW ALLOYS, INC., : : Defendant-Intervenors. : __________________________________________: **JUDGMENT**
This Court having received and reviewed United States Department of Commerce Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand Results”) following Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United States , 24 CIT ___, Slip Op. 00-96 (August 4, 2000) , Defendant-Intervenors’ comments thereon, and Commerce having complied with the Court’sremand order, and no other responses to the Remand Results having been submitted by the parties, it is hereby **ORDERED** that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on December 1, 2000 are sustained in their entirety; and it is further **ORDERED** that, all other issues having been decided, this matter is concluded.

__________________________________________ Dated: February 14, 2001 R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, Judge New York, New York
**Bureau of Industry and Security****U.S. Department of Commerce**Where Industry and Security IntersectWhat's   New | Sitemap | Search

About     BIS

News

Press       Releases

Speeches

Testimony

Publications

Electronic       FOIA 

Archives

Policies     and Regulations

Licensing

Compliance     and Enforcement

Seminars     and Training

International     Programs

Defense     Industrial Base Programs

Home
News

## Press Releases 

January 1, 2002 - December 31, 2002

January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001

January 1, 2000 - December 31, 2000

January 1, 1999 - December 31,     1999

January 1, 1998 - December     31, 1998

January 1, 1997 - December 31, 1997

July 1, 1996 - December 31, 1996

## Annual Reports 

BIS Annual Report for FY 2002

BXA Annual Report for FY 2001

BXA Annual     Report for FY 2000

BXA Annual Report for FY 1999

BXA Annual Report for FY 1998

BXA Annual Report for FY 1997

BXA Annual Report for FY 1996

## Foreign Policy Reports 

2002 Foreign Policy Report

2001 Foreign Policy Report

2000 Foreign Policy Report

1999 Foreign Policy Report

1998 Foreign Policy Report(pdf)

## Note

In April of 2002 the Bureau of Export Administration     (BXA) changed its name to the Bureau of Industry and Security(BIS). For historical     purposes we have not changed the references to BXA in the legacy documents     found in the Archived Press and Public Information.

----

FOIA
Disclaimer
Privacy   Policy Statement
Information   Quality
Department of Commerce
Contact Us
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8629 

To provide that an alien who holds a passport issued by the Palestinian 

Authority may not be admitted or paroled into the United States or 

be issued a visa or other documentation to enter the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and Mr. CRANE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that an alien who holds a passport issued by 

the Palestinian Authority may not be admitted or paroled 

into the United States or be issued a visa or other 

documentation to enter the United States. 

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 ‘‘Guarding American 

5 Zones Against Palestinian Immigration Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘GAZA Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8629 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO IMMIGRATION FROM GAZA. 

2 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 

3 ending on the date that is 2 years after the date of enact4 ment of this Act, an alien who holds a passport issued 

5 by the Palestinian Authority may not— 

6 (1) be admitted or paroled into the United 

7 States; or 

8 (2) be issued a visa or other documentation to 

9 enter the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the Second Division,

July 1, 1938

No. 38939.

#### Protests 437922-G, etc., of Leon Kargere et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that certain items consist of hemstitched wearing apparel in chief value of silk similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Scruggs*(18 C. C. P. A. 279, T. D. 44450). The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1210 was therefore sustained. Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31.
* 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

June 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41381

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE FRANCISCO FLORES, also known as Elisio Almasan-Tirado,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(1:06-CR-293)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Francisco Flores, having pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, challenges his sentence

on two bases.

He first challenges its reasonableness, pursuant to United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (requiring, inter alia,

“reasonableness” review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by

the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The district court’s

having granted Flores’ objection to the use of a prior conviction
2

in determining his criminal history score, his advisory Guidelines

range was 70-87 months. The imposed 72-month sentence was at the

low end of this range.

Because the sentence was within the properly-calculated

Guideline range (Flores does not maintain otherwise), it is

presumed reasonable. E.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551,

554 (5th Cir. 2006). Notwithstanding his claim that the district

court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), such a sentence is afforded “great deference”,

and we infer the sentencing court “has considered all the [§

3553(a)] factors for a fair sentence”. United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).

Flores has failed to rebut his sentence’s presumed reasonableness.

See Alonzo, 435 F.3d 554-55. Indeed, even though Flores contends

this presumption of reasonableness violates Booker, he properly

concedes this contention is foreclosed; he raises the presumption

issue only to preserve its further review.

Flores also challenges, in the light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of

prior felony and aggravated-felony convictions as sentencing

factors, rather than elements of the offense. As he concedes, this

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See, e.g., United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410
3

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).

Nonetheless, he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED
# NATURAL GAS GLOSSARY › FAQS ›



### OVERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS Referring Pages: Natural Gas Futures Prices (NYMEX) View History: Daily Weekly Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)
This series is available through the EIA open data API and can be downloaded to Excel or embedded as an interactive chart or map on your website. 

### Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price (Dollars per Milli on Btu) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Yea r-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2.49 2.09 2.27 2000's 4.31 3.96 3.38 5.47 5.89 8.69 6.73 6.97 8.86 3.94 2010's 4.37 4.00 2.75 3.73 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = N ot Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/26/2015 Next Release Date: 9/2/2015 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Futures Prices (NYMEX) 

## Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 0.0 10.0
Data Source: Thomson Reuters Dollars per Million Btu Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price 2.5 5.0 7.5 

# Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price (Dollars per Million Btu) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdA.htm

1 of 1 8/31/2015 9:00 AM
No. 50079.

#### Protests 46928-K, etc., of Aris Gloves, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the gloves in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Aris Gloves,*Inc. (31 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 268), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith certain of the merchandise in question was held dutiable at $5 per dozen pairs, plus $1 per dozen pairs under paragraph 1532 (a), as modified by the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement (T. D. 49458). - Other items were held dutiable at $5.50 per dozen pairs under paragraph 1532 (a). The protests were sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8446 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8446

 To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the 
        definition of critical mineral, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2024

Mr. Ciscomani (for himself, Mr. Newhouse, and Mr. Crane) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the 
        definition of critical mineral, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CRITICAL MATERIALS INCLUDED AS CRITICAL MINERALS.

    Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), to read as follows:
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `critical mineral' 
                means--
                            ``(i) any mineral, element, substance, or 
                        material designated as critical by the 
                        Secretary under subsection (c); and
                            ``(ii) a critical material as determined by 
                        the Secretary of Energy under paragraph 
                        (2)(A).''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(5), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(C) Inclusion of critical materials.--Not later 
                than 45 days after the date on which the Secretary of 
                Energy determines a non-fuel mineral, element, 
                substance, or material to be a critical material under 
                subsection (a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall update the 
                list of critical minerals published under paragraph (3) 
                to include such critical material.''.
                                 <all>
```