alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10993

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-00294-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ABELARDO MUNERA-CADAVID, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 17, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Abelardo Munera-Cadavid, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a sentence reduction, which he filed pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). The district court denied Cadavid relief under Amendment 

782, but did not mention Amendment 591 in its order. Cadavid contends this 

Court should remand with instructions for the district court to consider his 

arguments under Amendment 591. 

There is no need to remand because the record makes clear Cadavid was not 

entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591. United States v. Chitwood, 

676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e may affirm for any reason supported by 

the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” (quotation omitted)). 

“Amendment 591 requires that the initial selection of the offense guideline be 

based only on the statute or offense of conviction rather than on judicial findings of 

actual conduct not made by the jury.” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 

1219 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 591)). The amendment 

clarified that the enhanced penalties in § 2D1.2 (Drug Offenses Occurring Near 

Protected Locations or Involving Underage or Pregnant Individuals) applied only 

where the defendant was “convicted of an offense referenced to § 2D1.2” and not 

where the defendant simply “engaged in conduct described by that guideline.” Id. 

Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Amendment 591 is inapposite to Cadavid’s case. Cadavid’s guideline range 

was based on § 2D1.1’s base offense level and a role enhancement, and not on any 

of the conduct that would increase the offense level under § 2D1.2. See id. 

Accordingly, Amendment 591 did not lower Cadavid’s applicable guideline range, 

and Cadavid was not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591. See 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (explaining a sentence reduction “is not authorized 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” if the amendment “does not have the effect of 

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
No. 53653.

protests 127878-K, etc. (New York).

#### Simon Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 14

- 00241

- CV

EX PARTE Rigoberto ACEVEDO

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 18410

Honorable Gloria Salda ñ a, Judge Pre siding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant, the State of Texas, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(d)(absent agreement of parties, costs are taxed against ap pellant).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

December 7,1999

Amiable Technologies Incorporated
International Plaza Two
Suite 625
Philadelphia, PA 19113-1518                                  [BY CERTIFIED MAIL]

      Adobe Systems Incorporated hereby extends the term of the Configurable
PostScript Interpreter OEM License Agreement between Amiable Technologies
Incorporated and Adobe, effective February 7,1997 (the "Agreement") from its
current expiration date of February 7,1999 to February 7, 2000.

      All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

      Please have the two enclosed originals of this letter signed to
acknowledge Amiable Technologies Incorporated`s agreement with the above and
return two fully executed originals to Adobe for signature.

                                            AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED                  AMIABLE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED


By: /s/ Graham Freeman                      By: /s/ Gerald J. Kochanski
    -------------------------                   ----------------------------

Print                                       Print
Name: Graham Freeman                        Name: Gerald J. Kochanski
     ------------------------                     --------------------------

Title: VP President                         Title: Vice President Operations
       ----------------------                      -------------------------

Date: March 3, 2000                         Date: January 12, 2000
      -----------------------                     --------------------------
Richmond.

#### Dismal Swamp Canal Co. v. The Commonwealth.

December 10th, 1885.

Lottery Privileges—Revocation—Constitutional—Section 4, act of 1816, conferring certain lottery privileges upon the D. S. C. Co. was, by implication, repealed by sections 11 and 12, Acts 1883-’84, p. 268, and those privileges were revoked. The bestowal of those privileges was not matter of contract, and their revocation was no impairment of the obligation of contract, and was constitutional. *Justice*v. *The Commonwealth, ante,*p. 209.

Error to judgment of circuit court of the city of Richmond, rendered March 13, 1885, in a proceeding pending therein, wherein the Commonwealth of Virginia, proceeding by her attorney-general by information in the nature of a writ of *quo ■warranto,*was complainant, and the Dismal Swamp Canal Company was defendant. To this judgment said company obtained a writ of error.

Opinion states the case.

*John S. Wise,*for the plaintiff in error.

*F. S. Blair,*Attorney-General, for the Commonwealth.

Lewis, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding by information in the nature of a *quo warranto,*instituted by the Commonwealth through the attorney-general in the circuit court of the city of Richmond. The *221object • of the proceeding was to test the right of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company to exercise the privileges and franchises of a lottery company within this State. The company claimed the right to do so by virtue of the fourth section of an act passed on the 14th of February, 1816, which act, as it contends, constituted a contract which it was not competent for the legislature to revoke by subsequent statutes, which repeal the fourth section of the act aforesaid. Code 1873, ch. 194, secs. 12, 13; acts 1883-84, p. 368. And it insists that such subsequent legislation is repugnant to the tenth section of the first article- of the constitution of the United States, which inhibits the several States from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. This view, however, was not sustained by the circuit court, and accordingly, by the judgment complained of, entered on the 13th day of March, 1885, it was “ordered that the privileges,liberties, and franchises granted to the said Dismal Swamp Canal Company by the fourth section of the act of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed on the 14th day of February, 1816, be seized into the hands and custody of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that the said corporation be forever prohibited from using or exercising the same; and that the said Dismal Swamp Canal Company do pay to the Commonwealth her costs,” etc.

The only question raised here is whether the statutes, repealing the fourth section of the act of February 14, 1816, impair the obligation of a contract, which is protected by the clause of the federal constitution, to which we have referred. And as for the reasons stated in writing, and filed with the record in the case of *Justice*v. *The Commonwealth,*just decided, we are of opinion that they do not. The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

Judgment aeeiemed.
#### Jonas G. Goldsmith, Respondent, *v.*The United States Heveenoid Company, *Appellant.*

— -Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
No. 57372.

protest 192758-K (Los Angeles).

#### The American Import Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman CHASANEYA K. JONES

United States Air Force

ACM S32333

23 June 2016

Sentence adjudged 1 May 2015 by SP CM convened at Edwards Air Force

Base

, California . Military Judge: Brendon K. Tukey.

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Patricia Encarnaci ó n Miranda

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire

.

Before

ALLRED

, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are co rrect in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. * 

### Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). Accordingly, the approved findings and senten ce are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court

* There are two errors in the s taff j udge a dvocate’s r ecommendation. First, it states the maximum allowable punishment included total forfeitures of pay instead of the Special Court

- Martial jurisdictional limit of two

- thirds pay per month. Additionally, it erroneously lists the date the Convening Authority denied Appellant’s request for deferment of the reduction in rank as 8 May 2015

, but the denial is actually dated 11 May 2015. Because there were no forfeitures adjudged or approved, there is no requirem ent for new post

- trial processing.
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dunn Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                     
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Dunn Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                        
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Dunn Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                                                       
|Date: May 10, 2007
SERVED: FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SCOTTTICE 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0042 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012NE700211) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

R. Bennett Sargent, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01821 · 

TEL: 781-238-7058 

FAX: 781-238-7055 

Scott Tice, Respondent 

21125 Timberland Road 

Barronett, WI54813-9540 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0042 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · · 

-2-
#### Huldah H. Clapp, *Appellant, v.*Robert C. Clapp, *Individually, and as Executor, etc., Respondent, Impleaded, etc.*

— Order affirmed on opinion of Barrett, J., with costs to abide event.
Order entered July 25 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00546 - CV No. 05 - 18 - 00675 - CV No. 05 - 18 - 00676 - CV No. 05 - 18 - 00774 - CV RUTH TORRES, Appellant

V. MARIE D IAZ, ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 16 - 08711



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s July 21, 2018 “Motion for Shared Records for Companion Cases.” By opinion and judgment d ated July 3, 2018, the Court dismissed the appeal in appellate cause number 05 - 18 - 00546 - CV for want of jurisdiction. By order dated July 17, 2018, the C ourt designated the appeals in appellate cause number s 05 - 18 - 00675 - CV and 05 - 18 - 00676 - CV as companion c ases. We directed the Clerk of this Court to transfer a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record s filed in appellate cause number 05 - 18 - 00675 - CV into appellate cause number 05 - 18 - 00676 - CV. Appellate cause number 05 - 18 - 00774 - CV is a mandamus proce eding and nota companion case to appellant’s remaining two appeals . For these reasons, we DENY

appellant’s motion. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 35.1
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
  (a)
    
    A review of the Servicers activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing
agreement during the period from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 has been made under my
supervision.
 (b)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the
aforementioned period.
  /s/ Daniel J. Gardetto

  Daniel J. GardettoAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto OwnerTrust 2010-A
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Peter A. Lacey, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 18U.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 Exchange Act; and 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: August 15, 2011
Before releasing this report to the public, please remove the listing of registration numbers at the end of this spreadsheet.

PRD Appendix A: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work Planning

Orthosulfamuron (108209)

Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide).

Fo

o

d (F) /

N

on-fo

o

d

Use Site Formulation Desc

A. I. Max App 

Rate/App

Max # Apps / 

CC

A. I. Max 

App 

Rate/CC

Max # 

Apps / 

Year

A. I. Max App 

Rate/Year

Minimum 

Retreatment 

Interval

Minimum 

Reentry

Interval PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions

DisAllow Geo 

Restrictions Limitations

F RICE GRANULAR .0665 lb / a 1 .0665lb / a NS .0665lb / a NS 12 hr NS California | No Restrictions C46 || CAG || CAU || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

Current As Of Date : 23-MAR-2011

F RICE GRANULAR .0665 lb / a 1 .0665lb / a NS .0665lb / a NS 12 hr NS California | No Restrictions C46 || CAG || CAU || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

F RICE

WATER DISPERSIBLE 

GRANULES (DRY FLOWABLE) .0656 lb / a 1 .0656lb / a 1/yr .0656lb / a NS 12 hr NS

Arkansas || Louisiana || 

Mississippi || Missouri || 

Tennessee || Texas | No Restrictions

C20 || C46 || CAU || CBF || CBG(200) || CBI(200) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CSA(10) || CWH || 

CWL

F RICE

WATER DISPERSIBLE 

GRANULES (DRY FLOWABLE) NS 1 .0656lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr NS

Arkansas || Louisiana || Missouri 

|| Texas | No Restrictions

C20 || C46 || CAU || CBF || CBG(200) || CBI(200) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CSA(10) || CWH || 

CWL

F RICE

WATER DISPERSIBLE 

GRANULES (DRY FLOWABLE) NS NS NS 1/yr .066lb / a NS 12 hr NS

Arkansas || Louisiana || 

Mississippi || Missouri || 

Tennessee || Texas | Other |

C13 || C20 || C46 || CAC || CAU || CBF || CBG(200) || CBI(200) || CDC || CPE || CSA(10) || 

CSA(8) || CWH || CWL

Limitation Limitation Description

C (13) Groundwater restriction.

C (AU) Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the 

C (20) Endangered species restriction.

C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

C (AC) Keep out of lakes, streams, and ponds.

C (AG) Do not apply where runoff is likely to occur.

C (PE) PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues report to read 

C (RO) Please refer to the label for rotational crop restrictions.

C (BF) Buffer zone restriction.

C (BG) Aerial buffer zone restriction ___ feet.

C (BI) Ground buffer zone restriction ___ feet.

C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur.

C (SA) Do not apply when wind velocity is _____ mph or greater.

NDC = No Dosage Conversion

NS = Not Specified

Registration Numbers contained in this report

C (WH) Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters.

C (WL) Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8635 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the value of certain 

tax benefits relating to children and dependents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. MOLINARO (for himself and Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double 

the value of certain tax benefits relating to children 

and dependents. 

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 ‘‘Affordable Child Care 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT DOUBLED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 21(c) of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$3,000’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘$6,000’’, and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8635 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$6,000’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘$12,000’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 21 of such 

4 Code is amended by striking subsection (g) and redesig5 nating subsection (h) as subsection (g). 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 December 31, 2023. 

9 SEC. 3. DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LIMIT 

10 DOUBLED. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 129(a)(2) of the Internal 

12 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

13 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$5,000 

14 ($2,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000 (half such dollar 

15 amount)’’, and 

16 (2) by striking subparagraph (D). 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2023. 

20 SEC. 4. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILDCARE CREDIT DOU21 BLED. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45F(b) of the Internal 

23 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$150,000’’ 

24 and inserting ‘‘$300,000’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8635 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS