alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Julian CASTANEDA, Appellant.

No. 04-4107.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 2, 2005.

Decided Sept. 23, 2005.

Elizabeth C.L. Peterson, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Julian Castaneda, Sandstone, MN, pro se.

Arthur Ray Martinez, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Julian Castaneda appeals the sentence the district court imposed after Castaneda was convicted of drug charges. Citing *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Castaneda argues for the first time the district court committed error in sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme. We conclude the *Booker*error is plain, and given the court’s comments at sentencing while choosing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, Castaneda has shown a reasonable probability he would have received a lesser sentence under advisory Guidelines. *See United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 550-53 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed,*
      *738(U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.
Exhibit 31.1

         I, Roger S. Mertz, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SonomaWest Holdings,
Inc.;

         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;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

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

                  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2004



/s/ Roger S. Mertz
------------------------
Roger S. Mertz
Chairman of the Board
#### United States *v.*Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc., a/c Bunte Bros. et al.

No. 6271.

Entry No. 775200, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, November 29, 1939, etc.

Certified December 1, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 13, 1940, etc.

(Decided April 8, 1946)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Cass, Bacal & Castaldi (Alvin C. Cass*of counsel) for the defendants.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets from which exported, in the usual wholesale *347quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $27.50 per thousand, less nondutiable charges as entered.

It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $27.50 per thousand, less nondutiable charges as entered.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131110 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

DANIEL B. RINK, CATHERINE RINK, Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan CATHERINE RINK REVOCABLE TRUST, Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

RICHARD L. BISHOP, MARCIA A. BISHOP, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices
 CARL BLAUWKAMP, CARRIE BLAUWKAMP, 

LAVERNE BRUMMEL, MARCIA BRUMMEL, 

ANTHONY CASTILLO, VIRGINIA CASTILLO, 

RANDALL DEWILDE, LISA A. DEWILDE, 

PATRICK J. DIETRICH, CHERYL A. DIETRICH, 

ROBERT L. FERGUSON, BARBARA A. FERGUSON, 

ELIZABETH L. KRIMENDAHL, ROJELIO 

MARTINEZ, ANGELA MARTINEZ, DAVID 

NORTHROP, SHERYL NORTHROP, JOHN 

RUGGIERO, NANDA RUGGIERO, BARBARA L. 

SCAFFEDE, BARBARA L. SCAFFEDE
 

DECLARATION OF TRUST, DALE TERPSTRA, 

MARY TERPSTRA, PHILLIP H. TUCKER, 

BARBARA A. TUCKER, DEANNA VAN DYKE,
 

FRANCISCO W. YARDE, AMY M. YARDE, 

STEVEN E. VANDER VEEN, EILEEN E. 

VANDER VEEN, KRISTINE E. KORTMAN, 

MARK KORTMAN, JOYCE E. KORTMAN, 

JOYCE E. KORTMAN TRUST, THOMAS C. 

SLANEC and COREEN D. SLANEC, and 

FOREST BEACH EASEMENT HOLDERS, LLC, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 131110 

 COA: 265517

 Allegan CC: 04-036238-CZ 

RICHARD S. RATCLIFF and PATRICIA 

C. RATCLIFF,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0920 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 27, 2006 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-3270-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Colorado (FEMA-3270-EM), dated January 7, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 12, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of January 7, 2007: 

El Paso County for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow removal, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management, and Director of FEMA.

[FR Doc. E7-888 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
April 7, 1970

No. 70-29

#### Joseph Parisi, PVT, U. S. Army v MG Willard Pearson, U. S. Army.

Petitioner is awaiting trial by general court-martial appointed by the respondent Commanding General, U. S. Army Training Center, Fort Lewis, Washington, upon a charge alleging willful disobedience of the lawful order of a superior officer in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 890.

On March 16, 1970, petitioner’s counsel submitted to the convening authority a request for the production of all documents and statements relating to the consideration of his application for conscientious *627objector status, a verbatim transcript of the proceedings of any board convened by the Department of Army concerning that application, and “the names of all persons acting in a recommendation capacity or acting on the Board of Officers . . . which considered (his) application.” A further request was submitted for the attendance of such individuals at trial. The requests were denied both by the trial counsel and the convening authority. Thereupon, petitioner submitted to this Court a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking, inter alia, issuance of an order to the respondent directing him “to compel the production of the evidence and witnesses requested by the Petitioner.”

The attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before courts-martial are governed by the provisions of paragraph 115, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised). Under its provisions, disagreement between the defense and the trial counsel as to the propriety of a defense request for witnesses will be referred to the convening authority if the question arises prior to trial. That procedure was evidently followed here, and both authorities denied the request. The Manual further provides that the propriety of their actions may be determined by the Military Judge of the general court-martial to which the charge has been referred.

In a pretrial session -conducted pursuant to Article 39(a) of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 839(a), or upon arraignment when the case is called for trial, the defense can renew its request, and the parties can be fully heard on the question of materiality and relevancy of the requested witnesses and documents, United States v DeAngelis, 3 USCMA 298, 12 CMR 54 (1953); paragraph 115a, Manual for Courts-Martial, supra. Should the Military Judge’s ruling be adverse, the record is complete and may be reviewed pursuant to Article 67 (b) of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 867 (a). Thus, no such extraordinary circumstances sufficient to invoke this Court’s powers under 28 USC § 1651 (a) are presented.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 7th day of April 1970,

ORDERED:

That said Petition for Writ of Mandamus, be, and the same hereby is, denied.
VICTORY TIMES

ne
ar)
entine re

Vol. I, Tes 102

Wednesday's Ouline Edition

December 3, 2008

Zaytun Division marks successes as Iraq mission ends

Story and photo by
Staff Set. Joy Pariante
13th Public
Affairs Detachment

South Korea's Zaynm
Division, which
operatng in Irbil simce
2004, bid farewell to its
Tragi and coalition counter-
parts during an end of mis-
sion ceremony Monday.

The division has been
a presence in the northem
region of Iraq for the last
four years focusing efforts
on rebuilding the area and
creating a better qual-
ity of life for the Kurdish
comtrolled region. “The
Zaytun Division, since its
amival in 2004, has set the
standard for reconstuction
efforts in Iraq and it serves
as the example of what is
achievable in the rest of
the country.” said Lt Gen.
Lioyd J. Austin IL, com-
manding general, Multi-
‘National Corps - Iraq.

The extensive list of
Zaytun’s achievements in-
clude providing medical
care for more thar $9,000
Tragis, mchuding 25 chil-
dren who were brought to
South Korea for specialty
surgeries, conducting 445
literacy classes graduating
6.245 students and donat-

n forces calebvate thee achievements duting an end-ofemission ceremony in Intl, Iraq
the pest four years, Zaytun Division troops have been instrumental in the quailty of (Me

imprevemant for the residents of Irtil
vocational tring, Meracy training end the comstruction of 70 Abvarins end schooty in fhe eree.

ing 15,000 medical items
to clinics in Inbil “The
Koreans have steadfastly
provided the people of
northern Iraq with the tools
they need to lead peace-
fal and productive lives,”
Austin said

Operation Iraqi Free-
dom isn’t the first time
South Korean forces have
joined the United States
on the battlefield. During
Viemam and the Korean
War, South Korea stood
side by side with Amen-
can troops to fight for de-
mocracy and basic human
nights, said Vice Admiral

Thay coovdinated and

Kim Joong-Ryun, deputy
commander, Republic
of Korea Joint Chiefs of
Staff “The ROCIUS.
alliance has always been
most steadfast and exem-
plary,.” he said. “We will
join hands again at another
time in another location to
protect the values we all
stand for”

South Korea's conti-
bution of socioeconomic
development, humanitar-
jan assistance and, most
importantly, friendship
building im the Irbil area
will not soon be forgotten.
“You have been dedicated

cuted humemtarian aid missions,

trainers, mentors, parmers
and fnends to the Iraqi
people in this vital region
of Irag,.” Austin said.

“Through our contribu-
tious, we have strived to
become members of the
local community and true
fends,” said Maj. Gen
Park Sun-Woo, command-
ing general, Zaynm Di-
vision. Park said that al-
though Korean forces are
Jeaving the area, they con-
tinue to wish for peace and
prosperity in Iraq.

“We leave with great as-
surance of a bright furwe in
Inbil and in Iraq.” Kim said
Before the Second Division,

February 19, 1942

No. 46967.

#### Protests 27204-K, etc., of R. Geldmacher (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In this case testimony was taken at the hearing and samples admitted in evidence. It was stipulated between counsel that the articles in question were not plated. At the second hearing a motion was made to reopen the case, which motion was granted. It was then stipulated to consolidate some other protests With the instant protests, and further stipulated that certain of the items in question consist of laboratory instruments wholly or in chief value of metal, not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, and that the protests be abandoned as to all other items. Motion was also made by the government to strike out a portion of the evidence having to do with the use of the merchandise, which motion was granted. On the record presented it was held that certain of the items are dutiable as laboratory instruments at 40 percent under paragraph 360 in accordance with stipulation of counsel. Protests sustained in part.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc.,

 Appellant,

v.

Ernesto Pineda.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00094-CV

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014DCV1097)

ORDER FOR MEDIATION REFERRAL

The Court has determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation pursuant to 

TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 154.021, et seq., and ORDERS this case referred to mediation. 

Any objection to this order must be filed with this Court and served upon all parties within ten (10) 

days of the date of this order. An objection untimely filed may be considered waived. 

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of this order, or 

within ten (10) days of an adverse ruling on an objection, confer and attempt to agree upon a mediator 

qualified under TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. §154.052. The parties shall notify the Court of

the name, address, telephone and fax number of the mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon 

a qualified mediator, the parties are directed to immediately notify the Court in writing, and upon 

receipt, the Court will enter an order reestablishing the appellate timetable.
2

The Court further ORDERS that the mediation be held within sixty (60) days of this order 

and that the appellate timetable be suspended during such time. All parties or their representative 

with full settlement authority shall attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The 

mediator and parties shall file a report of the completion of mediation within forty-eight (48) hours 

of the conclusion of mediation advising the court of:

 full, partial, or no resolution of the case;

 whether further negotiations are planned; and 

 compensation paid to the mediator and by whom.

In the event no further negotiations are planned and there is no resolution, or a partial 

resolution of the case occurs, the parties will file a motion with this Court requesting that the Court 

issue an order reestablishing the appellate timetable. This motion will accompany the 

above-mentioned forty-eight (48) hours report.

The Court further ORDERS, in the event of full resolution of the issues in this case, that 

the parties file a joint dispositive motion within ten (10) days of the conclusion of mediation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15

th day of June, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 395 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 395

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF COPIES OF 
              POCKET VERSION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

    Under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, there shall 
be printed an additional number of

              

 copies of the 23rd edition of the pocket version of the United States 
Constitution (House Document 110--51) equal to the lesser of--
            (1) 550,000 copies, of which 440,000 copies shall be for 
        the use of the House of Representatives, 100,000 copies shall 
        be for the use of the Senate, and 10,000 copies shall be for 
        the use of the Joint Committee on Printing; or
            (2) such number of copies as does not exceed a total 
        production and printing cost of $180,949, with distribution to 
        be allocated in the same proportion as described in paragraph 
        (1), except that in no case shall the number of copies be less 
        than 1 per Member of Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 395

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of an additional number of copies of the 23rd 
    edition of the pocket version of the United States Constitution.
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1216 

To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum 

retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates established 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2011 

Mr. CORKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet 

minimum retroreflectivity standards on or before the 

compliance dates established by the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM RETROREFLECTIVITY STANDARDS 

4 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS. 

5 (a) WAIVER.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

6 of law, existing traffic control devices shall not be required 

7 to comply with the minimum retroreflectivity level stand8 ards set forth in section 2A.08 of the Manual on Uniform 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1216 IS

1 Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 

2 Edition (incorporated by reference in part 655 of title 23, 

3 Code of Federal Regulations), on or before the compliance 

4 dates set forth in table I–2 of such Manual. 

5 (b) EXCEPTION.—Any traffic control device installed 

6 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act shall 

7 meet the standards referred to in subsection (a). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS