alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE ARMSTRONG, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-17192 

D.C. No. 

1:15-cv-01109-DAD-JDP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Armstrong appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenges the state court’s failure to hold 

an evidentiary hearing to explore potential juror bias arising from the Facebook 

“friendship” between one of Armstrong’s jurors and a retired deputy district 

attorney. We affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

NOV 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

 

1. The state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the 

Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). None of the Supreme Court cases on 

which Armstrong relies entitled him to an evidentiary hearing. In Smith v. Phillips, 

455 U.S. 209 (1982), the Court held that an evidentiary hearing “is sufficient” to 

satisfy due process concerns in some circumstances, id. at 218, but it did not define

the circumstances in which an evidentiary hearing is required, much less hold that 

an evidentiary hearing is required “every time a claim of juror bias is raised.” 

Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2003). As we explained in 

Tracey, the holding in Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), is limited to 

the jury-tampering context, “where the potential effect on the jury is severe.” 

Tracey, 341 F.3d at 1044. And McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 

464 U.S. 548 (1984), has no bearing on this case because the juror in question did 

not answer any voir dire questions falsely. The state court did not unreasonably 

apply Smith, Remmer, or McDonough in concluding that an evidentiary hearing 

was not required in the circumstances presented here.

2. The state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). On this front, Armstrong 

does not challenge the soundness of any of the state court’s factual findings. He 

argues only that the state court’s fact-finding process was unreasonable because 
Page 3 of 3

 

the court failed to grant him an evidentiary hearing. That argument merely 

rehashes his legal contention that the Constitution required the state court to afford 

him an evidentiary hearing, and it fails for the reasons discussed above. 

AFFIRMED.
info@aerialtechnology.com

503-344-4397
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-2000
<CASH>                                             458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,001
<PP&E>                                          17,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,450
<BONDS>                                          6,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,170
<SALES>                                         42,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,330
<CGS>                                           38,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        57
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (106)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
# C_2015430EN.01000701.xml

| 22.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 430/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 430/7

---

Annual Report 2014

(2015/C 430/09)

On 26 May 2015, the European Ombudsman presented her Annual Report for the year 2014 to the President of the European Parliament.

The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/redirect?id=ar/2014&lang=en

---
# C_2015314EN.01001101.xml

| 23.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

NOTICE TO IMPORTERS

Imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres into the European Union from GSP beneficiary countries belonging to the regional cumulation group I and group III

(2015/C 314/06)

The European Commission informs European Union operators that there are reasonable doubts concerning the proper application of the preferential treatment and the applicability of proofs of origin presented in the Union for open mesh fabrics of glass fibres of HS subheadings 7019 40, 7019 51 and 7019 59 imported from GSP beneficiary countries belonging to the regional cumulation group I and group III (1).

1

Following a number of investigations, it would appear that significant quantities of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres of HS subheadings 7019 40, 7019 51 and 7019 59, consigned to the EU generally from Singapore, are being declared for release for free circulation in the Union as having the preferential origin of one of the countries belonging to the regional cumulation group I or III, without being entitled to it.

European Union operators declaring origin and/or presenting proofs of origin for the products mentioned above are therefore advised to take all necessary precautions as the release of the goods in question for free circulation may give rise to a customs debt, lead to fraud and, consequently, negatively affect the European Union’s financial interests. When the possible subsequent entry in the accounts of a customs debt results from the abovementioned circumstances the person liable may not plead good faith in accordance with the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2).

2

---

(1)  The list of countries is set out in Article 86 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementing of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code. At the time of the publication of this notice, the following beneficiary countries belong to the groups:

1

| — | Group I – Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar/Burma |
| --- | --- |

—

Group I – Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar/Burma

| — | Group III – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka |
| --- | --- |

—

Group III – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

(2)  OJ L 302, 19.10. 1992, p. 1.

2

---
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Artificial Intelligence Technology Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Garett Parsons, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: November 22, 2019
    BY: /s/ Garett ParsonsGarett ParsonsPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, 
Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director  A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3263

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to authorize the Consumer

Product Safety Commission to regulate the risk of injury associated

with firearms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 1993

Mr. DERRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to authorize

the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate

the risk of injury associated with firearms.

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 ‘‘Gun Safety Act of

5 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FIREARMS.

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO REGULATE.—Section 3(a)(1)(E)

8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.

9 2052(a)(1)(E)) is repealed.
2

•HR 3263 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

2 (1) CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.—Section

3 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15

4 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking out ‘‘de5 scribed in subparagraph (E) of this paragraph or’’.

6 (2) AMENDATORY ACT.—Section 3(e) of the

7 Consumer Product Safety Commission Improve8 ments Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 2080 note) is re9 pealed.

10 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST BANNING OF A FIREARM.

11 Section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15

12 U.S.C. 2057) is amended by adding at the end thereof

13 the following: ‘‘This section shall not apply in the Commis14 sion’s regulation of the risk of injury associated with fire15 arms.’’.

Æ
STORAGE TANK B

STORAGE TANK A

9000 kg of pTHF 1000

H C i G

REACTOR STORAGE TANK A
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.232.1

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                                                February 9, 2005

Adam K. Weinstein
255 Cardinal Lane
Jupiter, Florida  33458

Dear Adam:

     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2004
(as amended, the "Agreement") by and between Paxson Communications Management
Company, Inc. ("Paxson") and Adam K. Weinstein ("Employee"). Capitalized terms
used and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings assigned
thereto in the Agreement.

     Section 3.02(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:

          "Commencing on the date which is six (6) months and one (1) day after
     the termination date and continuing in effect for a period equal to the
     number of Severance Months specified in Schedule I hereto, Employee will
     receive the Employee's Base Salary as in effect on the date of
     termination;"

     All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same. If the
foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding of our intentions with respect
to the matters set forth above, please indicate by executing a copy of this
amendment as provided below and returning the same to us.

                                        Paxson Communications Management
                                        Company, Inc.


                                        By /s/ Lowell W. Paxson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Lowell W. Paxson
                                           Title: Chairman and Chief
                                                  Executive Officer


Accepted and Agreed as of this
10th day of February, 2005:


/s/ Adam K. Weinstein
-------------------------------------
    Adam K. Weinstein
EXHIBIT 32.2



WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of Comtech Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Hope Ni, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.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 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 the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: | March 31, 2005
|------ | --------------



By:

/s/    Hope NiHope NiChief Financial Officer
# C_2014408EN.01002101.xml

| 15.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/21

---

EUROPOL

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

2014/C 408/21

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/finance-819

---
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Joseph N. ATKINS, Relator, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
# C_2015287EN.01001501.xml

| 1.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/15

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

Request made by a contracting entity

(2015/C 287/08)

On 28 July 2015, the Commission received a request from ENI Portugal BV pursuant to Article 35(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1).

1

Until repealed (2), Directive 2004/17/EC applies to the award of contracts for the pursuit of, i.a., exploration for oil and gas, unless this activity is exempted pursuant to Article 30 of that Directive. From a procedural point of view, however, the provisions of the Directive 2014/25/EU (3) apply to requests for exemption, as the material conditions for granting an exemption remain unchanged as to substance.

2

3

This request concerns exploration for oil and gas in Portugal. Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC Directive provides that the later Directive is not applicable when the relevant activity is directly exposed to competition in markets to which access is not restricted. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of EU competition rules.

In case an exemption would be granted, its effect would expire on the date of transposition of Directive 2014/25/EU into national legislation or, at the latest, when Directive 2004/17/EC is repealed, given that the activity of exploration for oil and gas will no longer be covered by the provisions of Directive 2014/25/EU; hence no exemption will be needed.

Pursuant to letter (a) of first paragraph, of point 1 of Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission is allowed a period of 90 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 2 December 2015.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

1

(2)  With effect from 18 April 2016.

2

(3)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. With respect to the procedure, Directive 2014/25/EU is binding upon the Commission as of 18 April 2014.

3

---
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Disposition of Comments

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F2

Date: June 13, 2008

Revision

1

Page 1 of 1

Comments In Response to FAA Final Rule; Request for Comments

Docket: FAA-200~- IOZh Directorate Identifier ~-NM- JCI'1-AD

Comments have been received in response to: "Filial rule; requestfor commellts,"

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above.

(Project ellgineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commellter(s) name(s) and check the

appropriate response below. Include additional illformation following the appropriate response,

if necessary. Then type ill your lIame alld date in the spaces provided, and return it to: James

C. JOIIIISOII,ANM-II4.)

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received trom:

__ 8_DC.l~'~Ccmfl-"'f-------------

(Please check olle.)

1-These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant

reconsideration or revision of this AD.

These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of

---

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual

FAA-IR-M-8040.IA, paragraph 21.d., FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

1/4- It-DID ,

Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master list to Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
Yigo

Yona

Dededo

Piti

Agat

Inarajan

Talofofo

Santa Rita

Asan Mangilao

Merizo

Umatac

Barrigada

Tamuning

Chalan Pago-Ordot

Sinajana

Hagåtña

Mongmong- Toto-Maite Agana Heights

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census for Guam

For more information visit www.census.gov.

GUAM

44,943

9,000 to 20,999

4,000 to 8,999

782 to 3,999

Number of People

Total Guam Population: 159,358

Municipality

(County Subdivision Equivalent)

Agat

GUAM State/ County Equivalent

GUAM - 2010 Census Results

Total Population by Municipality

±

0 3 mi
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors

MedicaLogic/Medscape,
Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-94751, 333-94761 and 333-37294) on Form S-8 of MedicaLogic/Medscape, Inc. of our report
dated February 26, 2001, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MedicaLogic/Medscape, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31,
2000 annual report on Form 10-K/A of MedicaLogic/Medscape, Inc.

/s/
KPMG LLP
Portland, Oregon
May 29, 2001

---
Opinion issued Ju ly 30 , 202 4

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 4
- 00 5 32
- C R

——————————— IN RE JOSEPH A. BEACH , RELATOR

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator , an indigent inmate, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court order his court

- appointed attorney to give him a copy of the record in his case so that he can provide it to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in connection with a petition for discretionary review that he has filed in that Court. 1

1 The underlying case , Joseph Andrew Beach , No. 01

- 22

- 00637

- CR (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] April 4, 2024 ) , was affirmed by this Court. No motion for rehearing was filed, and this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the underlying2

There is no pending appeal in this Court, and this Court has no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal matters pertaining to proceedings under Article 11.07 of the Texas Court of Criminal Procedure. In re McAfee , 53, S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding.) Because Beach’s conviction is final and no appeal is pending in this Court, and because we have no jurisdiction over any proceeding filed pursuant to Article 11.07, we dismiss Beach’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Goodman and Kelly.

criminal case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 19.1 (a) ([providing that plenary power of this Court expires 60 days after judgment when no motion for rehearing is filed).
#### In re J. B. NO. 26245.

No. 67-379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 23, 1968.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

Pat Whitaker, Jr., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Steinhauer v. State, Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, 206 So.2d 25. Opinion filed December 12, 1967.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. Jackie S. GRUBBS and L. D. Grubbs v. COAST AMBULANCE, INC., et al.

No. 46979.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 29, 1973.

Bryan, Gordon, Nelson & Allen, Charles A. Pitcher, Pascagoula, for appellants.

Megehee, Brown, Williams & Corlew, Pascagoula, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Merle F. Palmer, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.