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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERICK HERRERA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50231

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02818-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Erick Herrera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-50231

Herrera challenges the district court’s denial of a minor role reduction, 

arguing that the court incorrectly compared him to a hypothetical average courier. 

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See 

United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). In 

evaluating whether a defendant is a minor participant, the district court must 

compare “the defendant’s conduct and that of the other participants in the same 

offense.” United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(internal quotations omitted). The district court’s suggestion that Herrera ought to 

be compared to a hypothetical average courier was, therefore, incorrect. See id. 

However, the district court’s error was harmless because the court ultimately 

denied the adjustment based on a proper comparison between Herrera’s conduct 

and that of a co-participant in his offense. Moreover, the court indicated that even 

if Herrera’s base offense level were reduced by two levels, it would impose the 

same sentence. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 

(9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1300 

To provide for a temporary safe harbor for certain failures by individuals 

to pay estimated income tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2019 

Ms. JUDY CHU of California (for herself, Mr. LEWIS, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. EVANS, Mr. 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. 

SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HIGGINS of 

New York, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a temporary safe harbor for certain failures 

by individuals to pay estimated income tax. 

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 ‘‘Taxpayer Penalty Pro5 tection Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SAFE HARBOR FOR FAILURE BY INDI7 VIDUALS TO PAY ESTIMATED INCOME TAX. 

8 In the case of a taxable year beginning in 2018— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1300 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6654(d)(1)(B) of 

2 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be ap3 plied— 

4 (A) by substituting ‘‘80 percent’’ for ‘‘90 

5 percent’’ each place such term appears in clause 

6 (i) of such section, and 

7 (B) by substituting ‘‘80 percent’’ for ‘‘100 

8 percent’’ in clause (ii) of such section. 

9 (2) INDIVIDUALS WITH ADJUSTED GROSS IN10 COME OF $150,000.—In the case of an individual to 

11 whom section 6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code would 

12 (but for this paragraph) apply, section 6654 of such 

13 Code shall be applied without regard to— 

14 (A) paragraph (1)(B) of this Act, and 

15 (B) section 6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code. 

16 (3) FARMERS AND FISHERMEN.—Section 

17 6654(i) of such Code shall be applied without regard 

18 to this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the attached Report of Manulife Private Credit Fund (the “registrant”) on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the registrant does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirementsof 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

 

By:
 
/s/ Ian Roke
 
Ian Roke
 
President
 
Chief Executive Officer
 
(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: February 28, 2024 

 
**
NOVEMBER 19FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB)

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP)

Date: November 19, 2008

Subject: PDC New Member Guide Recommendation

NOSB Chair: R. Delgado

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following:

Rulemaking Action: _______

Guidance Statement: _______

Other: ___X___

Summary Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The recommendation is an addition to the New Member Guide to add important training 

materials for new NOSB members.

Committee vote: Moved: Barry Flamm, Second: Bea James Yes: 4 No: O Absent: 0

NOSB Vote: Motion: Barry Flamm Second: Bea James

 Board vote: Yes - 14 No- 0 Abstain- 0 Absent - 1 

Summary Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and 

NOP):

The recommendation provides needed training materials for Board members to effectively 

carry out their. duties in accordance with OFPA and to provide guidance to the NOP

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board

Policy Development Committee

Recommendation for additions to the NOSB New Member Guide

New Member Training

September 11, 2008

Recommendation

The following recommendation is a request for an addition to the NOSB New Member 

Guide (page 1). The intent of this addition is to help add important training materials for 

new NOSB members in preparation for their position on the Board.

Proposed new language is presented in blue text.

1. Welcome New NOSB Members

b. What should I do first? 

Read. Before your first NOSB meeting, you need to read and be familiar with the 

following materials: 

The NOSB Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) 

Organic Food Production Act of 1990

The Federal Register Final Rule 

NOP FACA Training Power Point 

The first three documents listed above can all be found electronically on the National 

Agricultural Law Center Reading Room at:

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/organicprogram/

The NOP FACA Training Power Point can be found on the NOSB eBulletin Board on the 

NOSB Web Site.

Committee vote:

Moved: Barry Flamm Second: Bea James

Yes- 4 No- 0 Absent- 0
Agricultural Marketing Service, Commodity Procurement Staff

1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 3522-S, STOP 0239

Washington, DC 20250-0239

Voice 202.720.4517 Fax 202.720.5871

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

DATE: September 2, 2014

USDA CONCORD GRAPE JUICE PURCHASE PROGRAM ANNOUNCED:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced plans to purchase concord grape juice

(100895) for surplus removal.

An Invitation for Bid (solicitation) will be issued in the near future for deliveries November 16, 

2014, through April 30, 2015. All offers must be submitted electronically through the WebBased Supply Chain Management (WBSCM) website at

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=WBSCM. Offers submitted by any

means other than WBSCM will be considered non-responsive.

Offerors are urged to review all documents as they pertain to this program, including the AMS

Master Solicitation for Commodity Procurements, dated April 2014; Commodity Specification 

for Bottled Juices dated June 2014; and the Qualification Requirements for Prospective Vendors, 

dated June 2014. These documents are available on the AMS Commodity Procurement website 

at www.ams.usda.gov/commoditypurchasing.

Offerors must read all terms of the applicable Solicitation when it is issued. To receive electronic

(e-mail) notification of the issuance of these solicitations, see the “Subscribe to AMS CP News

(link)” available on the AMS Commodity Procurement website. Inquiries may be made by

telephoning (202) 720-4517 or addressing the Contracting Officer, USDA/AMS Commodity

Procurement Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 0239, Washington, DC 20250-0256.

An electronic version of this Purchase Announcement can be obtained through the World Wide

Web via the Commodity Procurement Home Page at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/commoditypurchasing
<TABLE>

                                                                       Exhibit 11.1



                          WIRELESS TELECOM GROUP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (Unaudited)



                                                               For the Three Months
                                                                  Ended March 31,
                                                            2004              2003
                                                            ----              ----

<S>                                                      <C>              <C>
Net Income                                               $187,867         $ 118,144
                                                         ========         =========

BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding   16,998,978        16,850,954
                                                       ==========        ==========

Basic earnings per common share                            $ 0.01             $0.01
                                                       ==========        ==========

DILUTED EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding   16,998,978        16,850,954
Assumed exercise of stock options                         610,680            72,376
                                                       ----------        ----------
Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding, as adjusted                          17,609,658        16,923,330
                                                       ==========        ==========

Diluted earnings per common share                          $ 0.01             $0.01
                                                       ==========        ==========

</TABLE>
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00501-CR

ANDREW OLEVIA JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 338th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1390646)

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on May 14, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 14, 2015.

Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.y
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stevenson Nelson, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), rendered May 17, 1989, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused "physical injury” to the complainant as defined in Penal Law § 10.09 (9) and, therefore, his conviction for assault in the second degree must be reversed. However, since the defendant did not raise this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal# the issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Bynum, 70*NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence established that the defendant hit the complainant on the knee with a bottle and on the head with a metal pipe. The complainant was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he received six stitches in the forehead, had his knee bandaged, and complained of pain in his knee. This evidence, combined with the complainant’s testimony that he was "injured for seven to ten days” as a result of being hit on the knee, supported a finding by the jury that the complainant suffered a physical injury *(see, People v Greene, 70*NY2d 860; *People v Sutton,*161 AD2d 612; *People v Crews,*159 AD2d 630; *People v Nix,*156 AD2d 722; *People v Lundquist,*151 AD2d 505). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
What’s Behind the USDAOrganicSeal?

Organic production emphasizes natural 

processes and ingredients.

you can trust:

YourFood USDA-certified organic food means your food was

9 Produced using allowed ingredients: 

• Natural substances are generally allowed

• Synthetic substances are generally prohibited

9 Produced without excluded methods 

(e.g., genetic engineering is not allowed)

TheFarm USDA-certified organic farms use:

9 Physical, mechanical, and biological farming methods

9 Farming methods that support biodiversity and soil health

9 Only limited amounts of USDA-approved pesticides 

rigorously vetted by the NOSB, USDA, and the public 

that do not harm human or environmental health

TheStandard The USDA National Organic Program ensures:

9 Rigorous certification of every organic farm and business

9 Annual inspection of every organic farm and business

9 Public and expert engagement to keep the standard strong

Visit: www.ams.usda.gov/organic

USDA Organic is the only federally regulated organic label on the shelf. It indicates that farmers and 

businesses have met strict standards for the growing, processing, and handling of their products.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer & lender. Published July 2021.
Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071 WA Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Comment On: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071-0001 Approvals and Promulgations of Implementati on Plans: Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; WA, etc.

Document: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071-0066 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-30090



## Submitter Information

Organization: Law Office of Mark Sokolow



## General Comment

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES, REGULATIONS OR AGENCY ACTIONS:

Director Orszag of the Office of Management a nd Budget issued an Open Government Directive on December 8, 2009, which presen ted a 60-day timetable to “respect the presumption of openness by publishing information onl ine” and Director Orszag re minded the agencies that the government has defined guidelines as to the obj ectivity of information (Orszag, 2009, p. 1-10). The federal guidelines focused on whether the “di sseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete and unbiased manner. Th is involves whether the information is being presented within a proper context” (Guidelines, 2001, p. 8459).

Is this plan similar to plans that have been impl emented in other areas of the country? The City of Port Arthur, Texas and its industrial complex has been impacted by regional transport of pollutants from other areas of the country. Has the EPA factored in the impact of these new regulations on the economic deve lopment of the communities?

MARK SOKOLOW ATTORNEY AT LAW 338 Wedgerock Webster, Texas 77598 http://mtsokolow -attorney.com mark@mtsokolow-attorney.com 

# PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: January 08, 2013 Received: January 07, 2013 Status: Posted Posted: January 08, 2013 Tracking No. 1jx-82zg-njzq Comments Due: February 15, 2013 Submission Type: Web Pa g e 1 of 1

1/8/2013 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\JHUNT02\Deskto p \zzz

_ deskto p files\EPA-R10-OA R -201

...
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00190-CV

In re Wimberley Springs Partners, Ltd.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Wimberley Springs Partners, Ltd., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and

a motion for temporary relief pending disposition of its mandamus petition. We granted a temporary

stay and requested a response from real parties in interest. Having reviewed the petition, record, and

filings by relator and real parties in interest, we dissolve our temporary stay and deny the petition for

writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: April 15, 2014
USDA
PRIME
CAUSE NO. 1 057759-A 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMNAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

EXPARTE 

DARRYL WAYNE TAYLOR, 

Applicant 

VS. 

THE 177 Th DISTRICT COURT 

OF 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

Respondent 

RfCIE~VE[] Bti¥1 

C~U~ CF CRUP,~J~IP;L APPEAtS 

AUG 1 0 2il15 

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

· Comes Now. applicant, in the above styled cause of action,. anQ. files this applicant's application 

for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Article 1 section of The Texas Constitution, and The Texas 

Apt;t.Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11:07 sec. 3 (d). And Will Show This CoUrt The 

Following: 

I. 

On July 6, 2009 applicant filed applicant's original application for writ of habeas corpus in the 

177th district court of Harris County, Texas. Applicant's application remained in the 177 th 

district court for (5) five years and (9) nine months before applicant received the State's 

Proposed Findings of facts and conclusions of law and order filed on April 15 2015. 

·II .. 

It has been over (90) ninety days since the State has filed it's Proposed Findings Of Fact And· 

Conclusions Of Law and the applicant's case has not been forwarded to this Court for review. 

The applicant's case has been pending in the 177th district court for over (6) six years in 

violation of applicant's rights under Article 1 section 10 of the Texas Constitution, apd the 14 th 

Amendment of The United States Constitution, due course, and due process, and the .equal 

protection of,the-law; and The Texas J\nn .. ~oq~. of Cr:itp.inal Procedure Article 11:07 se9t~on J. (d). . ' . ' . . . . . ' 

,. .· '· ' . 
j ' ... 

III. 

This Court after review of the above facts should grant leave of mandamus, and said case be 

forwarded to this court for review so that applicant can exercise all rights due the applicant, 

inwhich applicant has been denied. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, APPLICANT PRAYES THAT THIS COURT AFTER HAVING 

HEARD THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

BE GRANTED. 

Respectful~ Sub~tted, !/,.. A 

J1;)))>-t;L 1<1. ~,-«Y[ 

DECLARATION OF OATH 

The foregoing instrument is true and correct to the best of Applicant's knowledge U)lder the 

penalties of perjury. 

Signed On This The 5 day of August, 2015.
#### State of New York, Respondent, v Bronxville Glen I *358Associates et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered November 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) for an order dismissing the first three causes of action in the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sole issue presented on this appeal is the applicable statute of limitations for an action by the Attorney-General pursuant to the Martin Act (General Business Law art 23-A) alleging investor fraud. We hold that the applicable period of limitation is six years pursuant to CPLR 213 (8), and not three years pursuant to CPLR 214.

An action must be commenced within three years pursuant to CPLR 214 (2) if it is based on a liability or penalty created or imposed by statute. The appropriate inquiry is whether or not liability would exist under New York law but for the enactment of the statute *(see, State of New York v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co.,*64 NY2d 83; *Sturgis v Sullivan County Harness Racing Assn.,*98 AD2d 901, *lv denied*61 NY2d 608). Liability is considered to be created by statute, for these purposes, if the statute establishes a unique species of liability entirely unknown at common-law *(see, Bongiorno v D.I.G.I., Inc.,*138 AD2d 120).

Liability for investor fraud was not created by the Martin Act, but is recognized in case law predating that legislation *(see, e.g., Reusens v Gerard,*160 App Div 625, *affd sub nom. de Ridder v Gerard,*221 NY 665). Because the Martin Act did not create a liability non-existent at common-law, CPLR 214 (2) does not apply, even though the Martin Act may expand the definition of fraud so as to create new liability in some instances *(State of New York v Cortelle Corp.,*38 NY2d 83). Similarly, the creation of additional penalties does not bring a statutory cause of action within the three-year statute of limitations *(see, City of New York v Kingsview Homes,*70 AD2d 866). We agree with the court in *Loengard v Santa Fe Indus.*(573 F Supp 1355 [SD NY 1983]; *see, Reile v United Technologies Corp.,*Fed Sec L Rep [CCH] ¶ 97,959 [US Dist Ct, ND NY, Mar. 27, 1981]; *Campito v McManus, Longe, Brockwehl,*470 F Supp 986).

Contrary to defendants’ argument, a three-year statute of limitations for actions to recover damages for injury to property (CPLR 214 [4]) would not apply as this statute would have been applicable only if there had been no allegations of fraud in the State’s complaint *(see, e.g., Shiffer v Bristol Myers Co.,*
      *35968 AD2d 870). In fact, allegations of fraud are the heart of the State’s complaint. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ. *[See,*— AD2d —, Mar. 12,1992.]
cc: Curtis Lundy Downing 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 19474 e