alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FIDEL ANDRADE-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00446-CCE-1)

Submitted: January 3, 2014 Decided: January 15, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fidel Andrade-Hernandez appeals the sentence of twelve 

months and one day of imprisonment imposed by the district court 

after he pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United States 

following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). 

On appeal, Andrade-Hernandez argues that the district court 

abused its discretion by declining to order his federal sentence 

to run concurrently with an anticipated state sentence on an 

unrelated state charge pending at the time of his federal 

sentencing. We affirm.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (2012), a district court 

retains the discretion to run a federal sentence concurrently

with or consecutively to an anticipated state sentence. See

Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468 (2012). In 

deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively 

to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). Here, the 

district court stated only that it would not recommend that 

Andrade-Hernandez’s federal sentence run concurrently with the 

anticipated state sentence. The district court, after 

concluding that it lacked information about the pending state 

charge, found that the state court was in a better position to 

determine whether the sentences (if indeed there is a conviction 

and sentence on the state charge) should run concurrently or 
3

consecutively. The district court’s approach is consistent with 

Setser. See 132 S. Ct. at 1472 n.6 (“[A] district court should 

exercise the power to impose anticipatory consecutive (or 

concurrent) sentences intelligently. In some situations, a 

district court may have inadequate information and may forbear

. . . .”). Because the district court made its determination 

after considering Andrade-Hernandez’s arguments and fully 

understood the scope of its discretion, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse that discretion when it declined to 

order Andrade-Hernandez’s federal sentence to run concurrently 

with his anticipated state sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3012 

To authorize the use of unapproved medical products by patients diagnosed 

with a terminal illness in accordance with State law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2015 

Mr. SALMON (for himself, Mr. STUTZMAN, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To authorize the use of unapproved medical products by 

patients diagnosed with a terminal illness in accordance 

with State law, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Right to Try Act of 

5 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3012 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF UNAPPROVED MEDICAL PRODUCTS BY PA2 TIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH A TERMINAL ILL3 NESS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Federal 

5 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), 

6 the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

7 and any other provision of Federal law, the Federal Gov8 ernment shall not take any action to prohibit or restrict 

9 the production, manufacture, distribution, prescribing, 

10 dispensing, possession, or use of an experimental drug, bi11 ological product, or device that— 

12 (1) is intended to treat a patient who has been 

13 diagnosed with a terminal illness; and 

14 (2) is authorized by, and in accordance with, 

15 State law. 

16 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

17 (1) The term ‘‘biological product’’ has the 

18 meaning given to such term in section 351 of the 

19 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). 

20 (2) The terms ‘‘device’’ and ‘‘drug’’ have the 

21 meanings given to such terms in section 201 of the 

22 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

23 321). 

24 (3) The term ‘‘experimental drug, biological 

25 product, or device’’ means a drug, biological product, 

26 or device that— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3012 IH

1 (A) has successfully completed a phase 1 

2 clinical investigation; 

3 (B) remains under investigation in a clin4 ical trial approved by the Food and Drug Ad5 ministration; and 

6 (C) is not approved, licensed, or cleared for 

7 commercial distribution under section 505, 

8 510(k), or 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, or 

9 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360(k), 360(e)) 

10 or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 

11 (42 U.S.C. 262). 

12 (4) The term ‘‘phase 1 clinical investigation’’ 

13 means a phase 1 clinical investigation, as described 

14 in section 312.21 of title 21, Code of Federal Regu15 lations (or any successor regulations). 

16 (5) The term ‘‘terminal illness’’ has the mean17 ing given to such term in the State law specified in 

18 subsection (a)(2). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 Form Stock Option Award (with additional provisions)
 PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1998 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
  Relationship to Plan and Employment Agreement.
  Disability
 Exchange Act
 Option Shares
 Retirement
 Exercise Schedule.




---



##### 



Percentage of Option SharesDate
Vested
    
    Available for Purchase[First anniversary of the Award Date]
    
    
    25
    %[Second anniversary of the Award Date]
    
    
    25
    %[Third anniversary of the Award Date]
    
    
    25
    %[Fourth anniversary of the Award Date]
    
    
    25
    %100
    %
       Termination of Option
     2




---



##### 



Exercise of Option
   3




---



##### 



Notices
      Assignment of Option
   4




---



##### 



Stock Certificates
  Withholding
  Shareholder Rights
  Successors and Assigns
  5




---



##### 



No Employment Guaranteed
  Governing Law
  Amendment
  PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.Date:
    
    
    
    By:Name:Title:
  OPTIONEE:Date:
 6
OG/03/2010 17;0 1 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0001/00 2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISI RATION 

flECEIVED 

FF.DERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainanl, 

vs. 

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC., 

Respondent. 

JUN 0 3 2010 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. CPl 0SO0002 

Judge Bcnkin Jm-6i93^ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

— ( 

— I 

COMES NOW the Complainant, by and through the undersigned aitomey, and submits 

this Notice of Appearance in accordance with §13.33 of the of the Rules of Practice (.14 C.l'.R. 

§13.33) as follows: 

The Counsel of Record is hereby amended to: 

Robert B. Dixon 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200, facsimile (404) 30,5-5223 

Robert. l-i-i)ixon@faa. gov 

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of June, 2010. 

ROBERT B. DIXON 

Attomey 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
OG/03/2010 17:0 1 FAX 2024335142 FAA •* DMS @l002/002 

CERTinCATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this Notice of Appearance was sent by facsimile and FedEx to: 

Tile Honorable Isaac D. BcnJdn 

I^O'l", Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El 2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax (202)366-7536 

and 

Stephen J. Kolski, Esq. 

Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs 

AirTran Airways, Inc. 

9S)55 Air I ran Blvd. 

Orlando, FL 32827 

Fax(407)318-5901 

and the original and one copy via FedEx lo: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

KAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 hidcpcndcnce Avenue, S-W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

J UN 1 20fO 

DlITed
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATION




I, David Dodge, certify that:




1.          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Parkview Group, Inc.;




2.          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




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




(a)         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)         Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




Date: November 15, 2010

By:
/s/ David DodgeDavid DodgePresident (Principal Executive Officer)
# Official Journal C 8/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 8 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6011 January 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 8

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6011 January 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 8/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 8/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 8/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 8/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3063 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3063

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
       to exempt Alaska Native and American Indian programs from 
                             sequestration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2015

Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Ruiz) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
       to exempt Alaska Native and American Indian programs from 
                             sequestration.

    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 ``Honoring Our Trust Relationships Act 
of 2015'' or the ``HOT-R Act''.

SEC. 2. AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE PROGRAMS.

    Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 905) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(l) American Indian and Alaska Native Programs.--The following 
programs shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under 
this part:
            ``All programs, regardless of their respective 
        administering agencies, that primarily serve Indians, Indian 
        tribes, or tribal organizations (as those terms are defined 
        under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
        Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)).
            ``All programs administered by the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs.
            ``All programs administered by the Bureau of Indian 
        Education.
            ``All programs administered by the Indian Health Service.
            ``All programs administered by the Office of Indian 
        Education of the Department of Education and all programs 
        authorized under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
            ``All programs administered by the Office of Native 
        American Programs of the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development.
            ``All Tribal Justice and Safety programs administered by 
        the Department of Justice.
            ``All programs administered by the Administration for 
        Native Americans of the Department of Health and Human 
        Services.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
    Date: May 15, 2007
    /s/ Joseph A. MillsJoseph A. MillsChairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock
Energy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle Rock
Energy GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle Rock
Energy Partners, L.P.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of  Southern Bella, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, 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.





/s/ Viola HeitzViola Heitz, President, Chief Executive
      Officer,Principal
      Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting
      Officer and
Director
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Systematic Momentum LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Paul Morton, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC,the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 14,  2008                  |           |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------|
|                                            |           |
| By                                              | /s/Paul Morton |   |
| Paul Morton                                     |           |
| Chief  Executive Officer, President and Manager |           |
| **(Principal Executive Officer)**               | ** **     |
|                                                 |                |  |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 23.4
 Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS
  9601 AMBERGLEN BLVD., SUITE 117
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729-1106
512-249-7000
FAX 512-233-2618
    
    306 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 302
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987
817-336-2461
FAX 817-877-3728
    
    1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 625
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008
713-651-9944
FAX 713-651-9980
  
 Re:
    
    Consent Letter from Independent Petroleum Consultant
   Yours very truly,
CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:
    (-s- W. Todd Brooker)W. Todd Brooker, P.E.Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Stewart McCRARY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2316

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1976.

Albert A. Pena, III (Court-appointed), Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, George A. Kelt, Jr., Robert A. Berg, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

McCrary appeals from his conviction of possession of approximately forty pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

On February 13, 1975, McCrary stopped his car at the permanent immigration checkpoint located seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas. While conducting a routine citizenship inquiry, an officer of the Border Patrol detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the trunk of McCrary’s car. The officer directed the car to the secondary inspection area and requested that McCrary open the trunk. When this was done the odor of marijuana became much stronger. The officer then asked McCrary to open a large steamer trunk which was inside of the trunk of the car. After McCrary refused, a second officer confirmed that the odor was marijuana, and together the officers pried open the steamer trunk. Inside they found approximately forty pounds of marijuana. McCrary challenges the constitutionality of the search on the ground that there was no probable cause.

In *Sifuentes v. United States,*1976, 425 U.S. -, -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3086, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116, the Supreme Court held that “. . . stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment * * and that a search thereafter was proper if based upon *555consent or probable cause. The Falfurrias checkpoint is a permanent checkpoint within the parameters of *Sifuentes, supra. United States v. Torres,*537 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976). Thus, the stop was constitutionally valid and the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to detain McCrary and conduct the search. *United States v. Garza,*539 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.
----

| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Press Release dated August 1, 2011 issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| Exhibit No. | Description                                                                |
|-------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated August 1, 2011, issued by First Merchants Corporation |

----