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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

DANNIE PAUL BOWLING III,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-1589

D.C. No. 2:22-cr-00080-TOR-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Dannie Paul Bowling III appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-year sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for 

production and attempted production of child pornography, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 5 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1589

Bowling first contends that the district court failed to explain the sentence

adequately. He asserts that the court failed to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors, and provided insufficient justification for its rejection of the 

parties’ joint recommendation for a sentence of 15 years and its denial of his

request for a variance in light of future amendments to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. We 

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record shows that the court 

was aware of the parties’ sentencing recommendation and Bowling’s mitigating 

arguments, which it specifically acknowledged. Its explanation that a sentence of 

18 years was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes 

and goals of sentencing” makes clear that it did not believe a lower sentence was 

justified under § 3553(a) notwithstanding the parties’ joint recommendation. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the 

court expressly rejected Bowling’s request for a variance, explaining that the 18-

year sentence was below-Guidelines even after considering the upcoming 

amendments to § 4A1.1. 

Bowling also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the 15-year sentence recommended by the parties would have been 

sufficient. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable under 
3 23-1589

the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of 

the offense and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022023EN.01000301.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10551 – AMALFI INVEST OPPORTUNITIES / LA DORIA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 23/03)

On 10 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10551. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10551. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.8



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







February 24, 2009



/S/  Robert M. SchlaxRobert M. SchlaxChief Financial Officer
# C_2022131EN.01000901.xml

| 24.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/9

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 131/09)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2022)1508 | 17 March 2022 | 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated
  (4-tert-OPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | Kedrion S.p.A, Località Ai Conti s.n.c., Castelvecchio P., 55051 Barga, Lucca, Italy | REACH/22/16/0 | Triton X-100 as detergent for virus inactivation in the manufacturing process of the human plasma-derived medicinal products Plasmagrade/Plasmasafe and Resusix, as well as Plasminogen (pre-commercialisation name) and any subsequent commercialisation brand | 4 January 2033 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2022)1508

17 March 2022

4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated

(4-tert-OPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

Kedrion S.p.A, Località Ai Conti s.n.c., Castelvecchio P., 55051 Barga, Lucca, Italy

REACH/22/16/0

Triton X-100 as detergent for virus inactivation in the manufacturing process of the human plasma-derived medicinal products Plasmagrade/Plasmasafe and Resusix, as well as Plasminogen (pre-commercialisation name) and any subsequent commercialisation brand

4 January 2033

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

---
### -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/04 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
**EXHIBIT  31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Thomas C. Chesterman, certifythat:  

        1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;  

        2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  

        3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  

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

        a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  

        b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  

        c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and  

        5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):  

        a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  

        b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
uNNIBtiel,A

purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan,, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990).'

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

CC: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Legal Resource Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner argues that the district applied the incorrect legal standard in reviewing his pretrial habeas petition. Because he has not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in this regard, no relief is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A

### e, 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2713 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2713

  To limit the level of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop 
            Insurance Corporation to agricultural producers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2018

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Toomey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the level of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop 
            Insurance Corporation to agricultural producers.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF PORTION OF PREMIUM BY CORPORATION.

    Section 508(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) Limitation.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of this title, the total amount of premium 
                paid by the Corporation on behalf of a person or legal 
                entity, directly or indirectly, with respect to all 
                policies issued to the person or legal entity under 
                this title for a crop year shall be limited to a 
                maximum of $40,000.
                    ``(B) Relationship to other law.--To the maximum 
                extent practicable, the Corporation shall carry out 
                this paragraph in accordance with section 1001 of the 
                Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2776 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2776

  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations with 
respect to the size standards certain air carriers utilize for carry-on 
                    baggage, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2015

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations with 
respect to the size standards certain air carriers utilize for carry-on 
                    baggage, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carry-On Freedom Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. CARRY-ON BAGGAGE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue 
regulations to prohibit a covered air carrier from utilizing a size 
standard with respect to carry-on baggage that reduces, in any manner, 
the size standard utilized by the carrier on June 8, 2015.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States 
        Code.
            (2) Covered air carrier.--The term ``covered air carrier'' 
        means any air carrier that charges passengers a fee for checked 
        baggage.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7083]

[[Page 16818]]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2012 Operating Plan.
    2. Briefing Matter: Sec.  1112: Lab Withdrawal, Codification & 
Audit Provisions.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 20, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7083 Filed 3-20-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022210EN.01003501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/35 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10739 – FORD OTOSAN / FORD ROMANIA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 210/15)

1.

On 17 May 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022210EN.01003501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. (‘Ford Otosan’, Turkey), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ford Romania S.A. (‘Ford Romania’, Romania). |

Ford Otosan will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Ford Romania.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ford Otosan is an automotive manufacturer and distributor based in Turkey that is equally owned by Ford Motor Company and Koç Holding, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ford Romania will hold and operate at closing only an assembly plant and automobile manufacturing facility located in Craiova, Romania. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022210EN.01003501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10739 – FORD OTOSAN / FORD ROMANIA

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022210EN.01003501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022210EN.01003501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Order entered September 24 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00439
- CV JOHN PANIAGUA; AND H ERMELINDA MARAVILLA CORONA AND JOSE CAMERINO MARAVILLA, SR., INDIVI DUALLY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF T HE ESTATE OF JOSE CA MERINO MARAVILLA, DECEASED, ET AL., Appellant s

V. WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 02097



### O RDER
Th e reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated August 29, 2019, we informed appellants the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellants had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellants to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that appellants had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been foun d entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellants have notprov ided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the

status of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellants’ brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
#### DANIELS v. STATE.

No. 19830.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1938.

Wallace B. Moore, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property of the value of over fifty dollars, and awarded a term of ten years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record. The indictment seems to be regular and in proper form. The statement of facts discloses that the appellant was found in possession of a recently stolen auto truck, and that he made strenuous efforts to get away from pursuing motorcycle policemen in such truck, in fact injuring one of the *595officers rather seriously in his attempt to escape from them.

This possession of recently stolen property was unexplained, and under a proper charge on circumstantial evidence the jury found him guilty of the theft, and it is our opinion, that such facts were sufficient to base a conviction thereon. See Branch’s Penal Code, p. 1332.

The judgment is affirmed.