alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40442

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE PRUDENCIO CANALES-BONILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-721-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, Jose Prudencio 

Canales-Bonilla was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, which sentence 

included a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) due 

to Canales-Bonilla’s prior conviction for the California offense of rape of a 

spouse under California Penal Code § 262. Canales-Bonilla argues that the 

district court erred by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40442 Document: 00513771586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-40442

2

him “based on its determination that his 1997 California conviction for rape of 

a spouse qualified as a conviction for a ‘crime of violence’ under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 16(b) and thus one for an ‘aggravated felony’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).” 

Relying primarily on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), he

argues that the definition of a crime of violence in § 16(b), as incorporated by 

reference into the definition of an aggravated felony in § 1101(a)(43)(F), is 

unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends that this court 

cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Canales-Bonilla’s arguments are foreclosed by our

recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 

2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The 

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Canales-Bonilla’s 

facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b), and his challenge to our application of § 

16(b) on due process grounds.1 See id. Accordingly, the motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

The Government’s alternate motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

 

1 The recent grant of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on the issue 

whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, ___ S. Ct. ___, 

2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016), does not alter the analysis. This court is bound by its own 

precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See 

Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

 Case: 15-40442 Document: 00513771586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
**Exhibit 99.2**

## ** **

## **CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906(a) of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

 

The undersigned, being thePrincipal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the“Partnership”), hereby certifies that the Partnership’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnershipand will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated May 2,2003

 

 
| */s/      Mark  A. Maki*   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark A. Maki                                             |   |
| Vice President, Finance and  Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10


 


 


 






     

     


    

 


 


 






    	 	2	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	3	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	4	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	5	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	6	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	7	 



     


    

 


  






    	 	8
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 2980

_____________________________
N ICHOLAS O. O ’Q UINN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. July 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and M.K. T HOMAS and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Olivia M. Goodman of O ’ Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### State v. Onogi

16630

8/15/94

Dismissed
July 26, 2013

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 13-10

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Richard E. Hill, Jr. /s/ Richard E. Hill, Jr.

Director

Center for Veterinary Biologics

SUBJECT: Changes to the Rabies Virus NIH Potency Test Validity Requirements

I. PURPOSE

This Notice informs licensees, permittees, and applicants of the Center for Veterinary 

Biologics (CVB) intent to eliminate the median lethal dose (LD50) upper limit for the 

challenge virus as a validity requirement when conducting the Rabies Virus NIH potency 

test.

II. BACKGROUND

Supplemental Assay Method (SAM) 308 describes the current procedure for conducting 

the Rabies Virus NIH potency test according to the requirements specified in Title 9, 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 113.209(d)(3). For a valid challenge, SAM 308 

requires the LD50 to be between 12 and 50 LD50 before determining a serial’s relative 

potency (RP) value. This has required repeating otherwise satisfactory tests if the 

challenge LD50 was greater than the upper limit. Repeated testing has demonstrated the 

serials have acceptable potency in a valid NIH assay. CVB has found no indication an 

upper limit is necessary for test validity. In an effort to reduce the number of animals 

required for rabies testing, the CVB intends to eliminate the upper limit LD50 for a valid 

challenge when conducting the Rabies Virus NIH potency test.

III. POLICY

The CVB has eliminated the upper limit LD50 for a valid challenge as a validity 

requirement when conducting the Rabies Virus NIH potency test. For a valid challenge, 

the LD50 is now ≥ 12. SAM 308 will be amended to reflect this change.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

This change will be effective immediately.

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue 

PO Box 844 

Ames, IA 50010 

(515) 337- 6100

Safeguarding American Agriculture

Federal Relay Service

APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339
#### State v. Velazquez

18133

9/30/98

Affirmed
Item_5_1_9a_Camelpox/ page 1

Annex 22

CHAPTER ~~X~~16.Z.**INFECTION WITH CAMELPOX VIRUS**

Article ~~X~~16.Z.1.

General provisions

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with camelpox virus is defined as an *infection* of dromedary and bactrian camels (hereafter ‘susceptible animals’) with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*~~of genus *Orthopoxvirus*, family *Poxviridae*~~.

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*:

1)	~~c~~*Camelpox virus* has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a susceptible animal; or 

2)	characteristic orthopox virions have been observed in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus* or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or 

3)	antigen or nucleic acid specific to ~~c~~*Camelpox virus* has been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or

4)	antibodies specific to ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, that are not the consequence of *vaccination*, have been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*.

Standards for ~~diagnostic tests~~diagnosis and vaccines, as well as information on the epidemiology, are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
Annex 48. Item 7.5. – Article 9.9.2. of Chapter 9.9. ‘Infection with white spot syndrome virus’

CHAPTER 9.9.

INFECTION WITH WHITE SPOT SYNDROME VIRUS

[...]

Article 9.9.2.

Scope

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.:~~to all decapod (Order Decapoda) crustaceans from marine, brackish and freshwater sources. These recommendations also apply to any other *susceptible species* referred to in the *Aquatic Manual* when traded internationally.~~

[...]
H. Res. 743 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 24, 2016. 

Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and 

water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 

under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions 

in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 

waived. 

(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment— 
2 

•HRES 743 EH 

(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 

and an opponent; 

(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each 

at any point for the purpose of debate; and 

(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may 

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 

printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 

(c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back 

to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. 

SEC. 2. Section 508 of H.R. 5055 shall be considered to 

be a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) 

of House Resolution 5. 
3 

•HRES 743 EH 

SEC. 3. During consideration of H.R. 5055 pursuant to 

this resolution, section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 

11 shall not apply. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Crawley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

21655

5/21/99

Denied

90 Hawai'i 478, 979 P.2d 74
# C_2019072EN.01004801.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/48

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

(Case T-595/18) (1)

(2019/C 72/61)

Language of the case: German

The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50135 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN JOSE ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ No. 01-50216

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PEDRO ALVITER-SEGURA, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ No. 01-50329

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUSTAVO GARCIA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ No. 01-50377

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ABEL GERARDO HUERTA-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.No. 01-50135 c/w No. 01-50216 No. 01-50329 No. 01-50377 -2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. --------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-521-1-FB

-------------------- December 7, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In unrelated cases, Juan Jose Espinoza-Gonzalez, PedroAlviter-Segura, Gustavo Garcia-Lopez, and Abel Gerardo HuertaVelasquez appeal from their sentences following guilty pleas to charges of illegal reentry into the United States subsequent to deportation. The cases have been consolidated on appeal. All defendants argue that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to inquire whether the defendants and counsel had read their presentence reports ("PSR") in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A). They contend that this error requires remand for resentencing. We agree with the defendants that the district court failed to comply with Rule 32(c)(3)(A). However, because the defendants did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the district court, we will correct the error only if it was plain and affected their substantial rights. See United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez , __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001, No. 01-50213), 2001 WL 1135317, at *1; see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725,No. 01-50135 c/w No. 01-50216 No. 01-50329 No. 01-50377 -3- 732-34 (articulating the plain error standard of review). The defendants have failed to show that the district court's error was prejudicial and have not demonstrated plain error. EsparzaGonzalez , 2001 WL 1135317 at *1.
AFFIRMED.
# CM Calc 

Management Options

Cost, $K

Time, Days

# Equations for Assumptions

windrow

windrow

Burial Trench

Burial Trench

# Data

# image1.png

# image2.jpg

# image3.jpg

# image4.png

# image5.png
Veterinary Services Externship Program

Are you a student looking for work experience in public veterinary practice? 

We offer externships at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

www.aphis.usda.gov/careers

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender 

APHIS 91-15-003 | Slightly Revised April 2023

An Exciting Opportunity

Working alongside APHIS 

veterinarians and other animal 

health experts, our externs 

learn hands on what it takes to 

protect American agriculture. 

Externships usually last 2–6 

weeks and can be completed 

throughout the year. We accept 

applications year-round.

Eligibility

The application process 

is noncompetitive, and 

opportunities are open to 

undergraduate and graduate 

students in any field of study. 

Externships are unpaid 

positions, and there is no 

reimbursement of expenses. 

Students are responsible for 

arranging and paying for their 

own travel, transportation, 

housing, and food during 

their externship. 

To Apply

Email us at vs.recruitment.

pathways@usda.gov with a 

statement describing your 

interest, background, and 

availability; résumé; duty 

location preference; and 

unofficial transcript. 

Find Your 

Future 

With Us
# C_2021349EN.01002702.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-550/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
30 Utah 2d 448

#### E. H. COLTHARP & CO., a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John W. TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13396.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 28, 1974.

*886Orrin G. Hatch and D. Craig Bell of Summerhays, Hatch & Landerman, Salt Lake City, for defendant-appellant.

H. G. Metos, Allan M. Metos, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

This action was initiated by the plaintiff to recover the balance due on a promissory note executed by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff. The court below entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $2,714.75, together with interest and attorney’s fees. No claim is made here that the trial court erred in its determination of the amount due on the note nor as to interest and attorney’s fees. It is the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a judgment on his counterclaim in an amount greater than that found due the plaintiff on its claim.

Prior to the commencement of this action the plaintiff and defendant were made defendants in another lawsuit wherein a third party sought to recover damages resulting from the sale of a forged certificate of stock by the plaintiff. The forged certificate had been purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant and as a part of a settlement agreement of the prior lawsuit, defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff the promissory note herein sued upon in the sum of $12,792.52. As part of the settlement-agreement the defendant transferred to the plaintiff certain certificates of stock which the plaintiff agreed to sell and to apply the proceeds therefrom toward payment of the note. The defendant claims that the sale of the stock by the plaintiff produced a sum of money far in excess of the balance due on the note, and that he was entitled to judgment therefor. The defendant further claims and alleges in his counterclaim that the plaintiff agreed to deliver to him the forged stock certificate so as to enable him to proceed against his transferor.

At the conclusion of the trial the court found that the defendant’s counterclaim was not supported by any evidence which would entitle him to the relief prayed for. We have reviewed the record and we conclude that the defendant failed to prove the allegations of his counterclaim by a preponderance of the evidence. The record discloses no basis for a reversal of the decision of the district court and the same is affirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JT., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAIT

April 13, 1998

20643

#### State v. Hachmeister

Affirmed
#### Neighbors of the Ala Wai v. First Dev. Inc.

16710

3/6/97

Dismissed
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 21. Item 6.5.3. – Article 10.5.3. of Chapter 10.5. ‘Infection with SAV’

CHAPTER 10.5.

INFECTION WITH SALMONID ALPHAVIRUS

[...]

Article 10.5.3.

Measures for the importation or transit of aquatic animal products for any purpose regardless of the infection with SAV status of the exporting country, zone or compartment

The *aquatic animal products*listed below have been assessed as meeting the criteria for safety of *aquatic animal****products*in accordance with Article 5.4.1. When authorising the importation or transit of these *aquatic animal products*, *Competent Authorities*should not require any *sanitary measures*related to SAV, regardless of the SAV status of the *exporting country*, *zone*or *compartment*:

1)	*aquatic animal products* that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 60 minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates SAV;

~~2)~~~~mechanically dried eviscerated fish that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 60 minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates SAV;~~

~~3~~2)	fish *meal* that has been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 60 minutes or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates SAV;

~~4~~3)	fish oil;

~~5~~4)	fish skin leather. 

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8