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

No. 02-1008.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2002.

Filed Aug. 14, 2002.

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Cortez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court1 sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Cortez has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

First, counsel’s argument that the district court erred in not applying the safety-valve reduction fails, because Cortez had more than 1 criminal history point and did not cooperate with the government. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(l), (a)(5). The jurisdictional argument raised by both counsel and Cortez — that the offense did not involve interstate commerce — has previously been rejected by this court. *See United States v. Davis,*288 F.3d 359, 362 (8th Cir.2002), *petition for cert, filed,*70 U.S.L.W. 3790 (U.S. June 7, 2002) (No. 01-1804). The argument that the indictment was insufficient also fails, as any nonjuris-dictional defects were waived by Cortez’s guilty plea, *see United States v. Fitzhugh,*78 F.3d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir.), *cert, denied,*519 U.S. 902, 117 S.Ct. 256, 136 L.Ed.2d 182 (1996), and the indictment on its face stated an offense, *see United States v. Hester,*140 F.3d 753, 760 (8th Cir.1998). While Cortez complains that no coconspir-*40ators were identified, he admitted in his guilty-plea petition that he agreed with others to possess and distribute methamphetamine.

Contrary to counsel’s final argument, Cortez’s sentence did not violate *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), as his sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum. *See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado,*220 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir.), *cert, denied,*531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000). Cortez’s ineffective-assistance claims are not properly raised on direct appeal. *See United States v. Cain,*134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998).

Following our independent review, *see Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75,109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Ot'd WiL0L
Fob-28-00 O6:01en = Froe- TO2 POTAT F-OId

{(o)(5)]

ane CR -Ot OOOPARPH-RT4

00500000000930


Fab-26-00 08:00pm = Froe~ T+O12 FP OG/OT Ford

{(b)(5)]

on cA-OT OOOP-LP-AS4

00500000000929


ause0/¥O AOTOL TAA 2UZ OES JULE 1pB U.S.OFFICE

+ JHURLEY 002/007

[OUTSIDE SCOPE , (b)(5)]

00500000001040


Feb-2S-00 06 ise = Froa~ T-Ol2 FP SURT FHOtd
Enron Responses to Issues Identified
Regarding the Earoa Nigeria Power Project
February 18, 2000
{(6)(5)}
1
wer RA:AY 2022-62-54

00500000000926


perte-uU UtrUUpe = RroRe T-Ol2 POs/OT FDld

{((b)(5)}

ant RO:At oMAz-62-Tad
00500000000927


Feb-?$-00 06:00ps | Froa~ T0012 P.GS/OT F814

{(b)(5))

seit eorRt 9om2-62-H33
00500000000928
#### Robert STITZEL, Individually and Robert Stitzel d/b/a Stitzel Realty Construction and Insurance, Appellant, v. C. H. HAVERTY, Appellee.

No. 72-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1540 Lower Tribunal No. 20-3871

________________ 

### Elio Daniel Aponte Cevallos ,

Appellant,
vs. 

### Anthea Ponsetti , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge. Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Roy D. Wasson; Genova Family Law and Anthony Meehan Genova, for appellant. Carlton Fields, P.A., and Matthew J. Conigliaro (Tampa), for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2011 of Tower International, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Malcolm, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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



|April 27, 2012          | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Mark Malcolm        | 
|Mark Malcolm            | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

December 14, 2017 

 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC 

Cash Room 

Agenda 

Welcome and Opening Remarks 

Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, Chair of the Commission 

Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Vice Chair of the 

Commission

Plans for 2018: Assessment and Improvement 

Treasurer Jovita Carranza 

Trends and Issues in Household Economic Security 

Jason Brown, Director, Microeconomic Analysis, Office of Economic Policy, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury 

 Questions/Discussion from Commission 

Remarks from FLEC Steering Committee Members 

Commission Discussion 

2017 Highlights 

Louisa Quittman, Director, Financial Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury

 Calendar Review 

Conclusion
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Jan - Mar

2012 Actual 440 401 (3) 398 (42) 43 0

Apr - Jun

2012 Actual 129 172 5 177 48 91 0

Jul - Sep

2012 Actual 234 264 (36) 228 (6) 85 (32)

Oct - Dec

2012 Actual 291 297 1 298 7 93 (1)

Jan - Mar

2013 Actual 354 349 (8) 341 (14) 79 0

Apr - Jun

2013 Actual (73) (11) (7) (18) 56 135 0

Jul - Sep

2013 Actual 205 197 (38) 159 (46) 88 0

Oct - Dec

2013 Actual 179 264 (11) 253 74 162 0

Jan - Mar

2014 Actual 275 265 (10) 254 (20) 142 0

Apr - Jun

2014 Actual (60) (64) 1 (63) (3) 139 0

Jul - Sep

2014 Actual 176 205 (10) 195 19 158 0

Oct - Dec

2014 Actual 170 227 8 236 65 223 0

Jan - Mar

2015 Actual 268 141 3 144 (123) 100 0

Apr - Jun

2015 Actual (120) 57 (22) 35 154 254 0

Jul - Sep

2015 Actual 163 133 (26) 107 (56) 199 0

Oct - Dec

2015 Actual 212 354 (7) 347 135 333 0

Jan - Mar

2016 Actual 266 244 3 247 (20) 314 0

Apr - Jun

2016 Actual (60) (25) 14 (10) 50 364 0

Jul - Sep

2016 Actual 234 222 2 224 (10) 353 0

Oct - Dec

2016 Actual 201 255 (8) 246 46 399 0

Jan - Mar

2017 Actual 335 40 (12) 28 (307) 92 0

Apr - Jun May 1, 2017 (105) 26 (23) 3 108 200 0

2017 Actual (75) 35 (22) 14 89 181 0

Forecast Revisions 30 10 1 11 (19) (19) 0

Jul - Sep May 1, 2017 162 98 (22) 76 (85) 115 0

2017 July 31, 2017 196 96 (21) 75 (121) 60 0

Forecast Revisions 34 (2) 1 (1) (36) (55) 0

Oct - Dec

2017 July 31, 2017 179 501 (22) 479 300 360 0

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
Commodity 2006 Pounds 

Applied

2007 Pounds 

Applied

2008 Pounds 

Applied

APPLE 1

BOK CHOY (WONG BOK) 5 3 2

BROCCOLI 97 77 60

BRUSSELS SPROUTS 11 30 11

CABBAGE 65 74 47

CAULIFLOWER 22 43 16

CELERY, GENERAL 48 61 31

CHICORY (ALL OR UNSPEC) 4 2 3

CHINESE CABBAGE (NAPPA, WON BOK, CELERY CABBAGE) 3 3 2

COLLARDS 13 14 8

CORN (FORAGE - FODDER) 2

CORN, HUMAN CONSUMPTION 1

COTTON, GENERAL 505 204 245

CUCUMBER (PICKLING, CHINESE, ETC.) 1

EGGPLANT (ORIENTAL EGGPLANT) 1 1

ENDIVE (ESCAROLE) 1

KALE 46 2

KOHLRABI 1 1

LETTUCE, HEAD (ALL OR UNSPEC) 492 459 387

LETTUCE, LEAF (ALL OR UNSPEC) 44 65 58

MUSTARD, GENERAL 9 7 6

N-GRNHS GRWN CUT FLWRS OR GREENS 1 1

PEAR 33

PEPPERS (CHILI TYPE) (FLAVORING AND SPICE CROP) 1

PEPPERS (FRUITING VEGETABLE), (BELL,CHILI, ETC.) 60 57 29

RADICCHIO 1

Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) was used to produce the following table 

outlining the pounds of Emamectin Benzoate used in California over the three most recent years available (2006 - 2008). 

Emamectin Benzoate (122806) Cal. DPR Usage Data 

SPINACH 31 1

SWISS CHARD (SPINACH BEET) 8 8 6

TOMATO 112 111 55

TOMATOES, FOR PROCESSING/CANNING 551 613 563

TURNIP, GENERAL 2 1 1

Grand Total 2062 1883 1535

Date Prepared: 07/14/10

Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm

Empty cells indicate no available usage.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-725-000]


Chicago Energy Exchange of Chicago, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 15, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 17, 1997, Chicago Energy Exchange of 
Chicago, Inc., tendered for filing a notice of change of designation 
from Chicago Energy Exchange of Chicago, Inc., to Chicago Electric 
Trading, L.L.C.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 24, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33155 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending 

April 1 – June 30, 2018 

Board 

Approval 

Date 

Country Amount Type U.S. Position Background 

4/30 Malawi SDR 78.075 million 

($112.3 million) 

Request for Three-Year 

Extended Credit Facility (ECF) 

Arrangement 

Support http://www.imf.org/en/n 

ews/articles/2018/04/30/ 

pr18157-imf-executiveboard-approves-underthe-ecf-arrangement-formalawi 

6/1 GuineaBissau SDR3.028 million 

($4.3 million) 

Fifth Extended Credit Facility 

(ECF) Review/Requests for 

Extension and Augmentation of 

Access and Financing 

Assurances Review 

Support http://www.imf.org/en/P 

ublications/CR/Issues/20 

18/06/06/Guinea-BissauFifth-Review-Under-theExtended-CreditFacility-ArrangementRequest-for-45942 

6/20 Argentina US$50 billion Request for Stand-By 

Arrangement 

Support https://www.imf.org/en/ 

News/Articles/2018/06/2 

0/pr18245-argentinaimf-executive-boardapproves-us50-billionstand-by-arrangement
# M 2 3s-io 

# au PO RECEIVED OPPT CBIC 

# 2013JAN i i AM10: 57 p. 1

DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts

Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 08023 

### January 3, 2013 Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPAEast Room 4146 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 

### Re: EPA- HQ- OPPT - 2003 - 0012 DuPont Chambers Works NODES Permit No
. NJ0005100 PFOA Data Submittal - Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples November 2012 Sample Data Dear Chemical Control Division: Attached please find a summary of PFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662Ain November 2012. In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), these results are provided to NJDEPon a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring reports. The enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results fromthis monitoring period
.



### O- l,u- ~ 

### Jacques Monteux ' Unit Manager-Site Manufacturing Systems DuPont Chambers Works
JM/clc Enclosures 

## CONTAINS NOCS
.Copy to:

,/Document Control Office US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention andToxics EPAEast Room 6428 

### 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Ms
. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) Principal Environmental Engineer NJDEP Division of Water Quality Bureau of Point Source Permitting - Region 2 401 E
. State Street P.O
. Box 029 

### Trenton, NJ 08625-0029

## w2

N
. . tV N > N C O yl ~ m d a m ol N Y 3 0

~ o N _U sQ O OZ N E ((DO U) E 0 

## 2 o ~0 : Q 0.6

2b a E 0 Q (L

- - - - - -- 0 Z ECN a C ; ;7 0 Sz , 0

B -0 < - E

v 0 e? m c ' 0O o g 0 0- C ~ A , , N *19 0 2 E o o 0 2 E A ~

M ~ E 0

_ ? 4 0 V '6 CL It 2 , 0 J z - 0 Lu E . t cl 2 0 0 i
It
t 9 1-1 M

O = z v oo 0 cl CY 0 00 z z z ~~ E E 9 0 = m

a- (L

'E! 0

c 0 z z v
The White House 

Office of the Press Secretary 

For Immediate Release November 12, 2010 

G-20: Fact Sheet on the U.S. Global Development Policy and the G-20 Development 

Framework 

Today, at the Seoul Summit, G-20 issued a statement that includes principles on development 

and a comprehensive multi-year Plan of Action for future G-20 engagement. The G20’s plan 

includes actions on infrastructure, trade, human resource development, private sector investment 

and job creation, food security, domestic resource mobilization, knowledge sharing and growth 

with resilience. 

 

While all G-20 countries provide assistance, be it financial or technical – the added value of the 

G-20’s development plan is that, rather than focusing on assistance, it brings to the table a 

package of policy and other commitments aimed at enabling low-income countries to mobilize 

the domestic resources and attract the private investment capital that can sustain broad-based 

economic growth. 

 

The G-20 approach to development and the U.S. global development policy announced by 

President Obama in New York on September 22, 2010, are mutually reinforcing: both seek to 

engage as partners with those governments that are willing to demonstrate the leadership 

required to drive a development agenda focused on sustainable, broad-based economic growth. 

Both also highlight the critical role of the private sector, and call for accountable leadership, 

transparency, effective partnerships and leveraging private-sector resources and tangible 

outcomes. 

 

The U.S. global development policy and the G-20 development plan share the goal of helping 

countries reduce their dependence on foreign assistance by mobilizing foreign investment and 

domestic capital to foster sustained economic growth. Both recognize that in addition to foreign 

assistance, other development tools such as sound policies, private capital and trade are 

necessary to strengthen the economies of low income countries. 

 

This Summit’s focus on development is significant for three reasons: 

• First, the G-20 recognizes that narrowing the development gap is critical for a strong, 

sustainable and balanced global economy. 

• Second, the G-20 emphasizes fostering a partnership of developed, emerging market and 

developing countries that share the goal of achieving sustained economic growth. 

• Third, the, G-20 is committed to complementing existing development efforts by 

focusing on addressing regional challenges to development and working through 

multilateral institutions to improve prospects for growth in developing countries. 
Going forward, the United States, consistent with the G-20 development plan and its own global 

development policy, will work to more effectively leverage its development resources and 

achieve better economic growth outcomes for developing countries.
IFC Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability 

The US abstained on this policy on February 21, 2006. It does not remedy outstanding 

concerns that the US has had regarding individual IFC operations, even though there are 

some areas where the policy and accompanying performance standards represent greater 

breadth than the status quo and advances in how social and environmental impacts are 

mitigated. The policy represents a move to a more client-centric and outcomes-based 

approach, which makes sense only if balanced by levels of transparency and 

accountability appropriate for a public sector institution.
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months EndedNine Months EndedSeptember 30,September 30,(dollars in thousands)2010200920102009Earnings:
Loss before benefit from income taxes$(112,344)$(126,491)$(160,756)$(595,328)Interest expense277,577273,890800,956791,354Implicit interest in rents3,6073,83611,35314,446Total earnings$ 168,840$ 151,235$ 651,553$ 210,472Fixed charges:
Interest expense$ 277,577$ 273,890$ 800,956$ 791,354Implicit interest in rents3,6073,83611,35314,446Total fixed charges$ 281,184$ 277,726$ 812,309$ 805,800Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*0.600.540.800.26  * Earnings were insufficient to cover total fixed charges by $112.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 and $160.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. Earnings were insufficient to cover total fixed charges by $126.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and $595.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009.    81
#### Allen Wayne SUMMERSILL and James Monroe Gandy, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 6, 1973.

Allen Wayne Summersill, and James Monroe Gandy, in pro. per., and John A. Henninger, Clearwater, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*190
      *On Motion to Compel the Circuit Court Clerk to Prepare the Record on Appeal and Motion to Dismiss Appeal*

PER CURIAM.

By motion, appellants seek an order from this Court compelling the clerk of the trial court to prepare a record on appeal in compliance with their directions. The instant appeal is from a denial by the trial court of movants-appellants’ “Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence Pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850 [33 F.S.A.]”. The clerk of the trial court forwarded to this Court a complete transcript of the record pertaining to the collateral attack proceeding which was filed on April 30, 1973.

Appellants, in their directions to the Clerk, sought copies of every paper filed pertaining to them since their initial arrest, including a copy of the transcript of their trial proceedings. The records of this Court reflect that on the 25th day of January, 1972, in the case of Summersill and Gandy v. State,1 a direct appeal from the judgments of conviction now assailed on collateral attack, this Court entered an order allowing these appellants 30 days subsequent to receipt of the record on appeal from the public defender within which to file their pro se brief. Also, a certificate of mailing filed in this Court reflects that the public defender forwarded a complete record of the trial proceedings to appellants on the 26th day of January, 1972.

Subsequent to filing the first mentioned motion, appellants filed another motion in this court entitled “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” wherein they moved the Court to dismiss this appeal “without prejudice to re-plead the case”. The grounds for the latter motion is basically that the entire record of their initial trial has not been furnished to them.

By caveat, we have in the records the prior direct appeal including a transcript of proceedings at arraignment and a transcript of the trial proceedings. Another review of this file gives little if any comfort to appellants in the instant proceedings. The citizens of this State, having already shouldered the burden of furnishing these appellants with counsel for their trial; with counsel for a direct appeal; a copy of the complete recordi on appeal in the trial of their cause; a complete and full appellate review of their judgments of conviction; and a complete transcript of their postconviction proceedings, it is the judgment of this Court that the instant motions are frivolous and without merit.

The respective motions are denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

. 263 So.2d 303 (1 Fla.App.1972).
#### Signa RICHARDSON, wife of and Rosielee FRAZIER v. CHECKER CABS, INC., and Richard Kinhelie.

No. 5257.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1973.

*64Peter J. Abadie, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff s-appellees.

Gregory M. Porobil, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Defendant cab company appeals from a $1,098 judgment for damages from a vehicular collision in which plaintiff wife, a fare-paying passenger in defendant’s cab, was injured. (The other defendant, the driver of the other car, was not served.)

Defendant disputes only liability.

Defendant’s cab was moving within the 35-mph speed limit in its left-hand lane on a boulevard street when a car which had been parked at the right curb, some two car lengths before an intersection, pulled out and crossed the two traffic lanes to make a left turn at the intersection. Defendant’s driver testified he saw the other driver angling out from the curb, but the other driver saw him and defendant’s driver felt the other would respect defendant’s right of way and stop. Defendant’s driver therefore did not brake or swerve until the other driver in fact darted out, at which time braking on the mist-dampened street was ineffective to avoid the collision.

We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s driver’s testimony does not exculpate defendant. He could have stopped or (as he said, “if I knew he was going to go”) passed to the right of the other car, had he taken defensive measures when he first saw that car. His description was that that car was “ready to take off from the curb, in fact, he was out a little ways * * * pulling out and looking right at me * * We conclude that the highest degree of care owed by a common carrier to its fare-paying passengers obliged the driver (towards his passenger) to slow down under the circumstances, to drive defensively upon the realization that the other driver, already in the act of pulling out, might not stop for the -cab.

The judgment is affirmed.