alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eulogio MARTINEZ-ARRELLANO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40320 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

*914Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eulogio Martinez-Arrellano, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eulogio Martinez-Arrellano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Arrellano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,612-01
EX P ARTE P AUL G OVEA, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR16-0180- 01 IN THE 415T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM P ARK

ER COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant filed this a

pplication for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district c lerk forwa

rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, a district cler k is require d to forwa

rd to this Court, among other things, “the application, an y answers filed, any motions filed, transcr ipts of all depositions a

nd hear ings, any

aff idavits, and any other matters such as officia l r ecor ds used by the court in resolving issues of fac t.” Id
. at § 3(d); see also T E X . R
. A P P . P
. 7 3
. 4 (b )( 4). The rec ord forwa rded to this Court appea

rs, however, to be incompl et e. T h e findings of fac t and conclusions of law from the trial court mentio n an af fi d av i t filed by appellate counsel, but this document is missing from the r ecor d.2

The district cler

k shall either forwa

rd to this Court the aff

idavit from appellate counse l or cer tify in writing that this document is not part of the re cord. The district clerk sha ll comply with this order within thirty

day s from the da te of this order
.
Filed: Mar ch 16, 2022 Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02927]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1279 (Review)]


Hydrofluorocarbon Blends From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
hydrofluorocarbon blends from China would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 35131) 
and determined on October 4, 2021 that it would conduct an expedited 
review (87 FR 117, January 3, 2022).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on February 7, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5278 (February 2022), 
entitled Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-
1279 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 7, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-02927 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50886 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MEDARDO HERNANDEZ

- MEJIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 256

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Medardo Hernandez

- Mejia raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453 , 458

- 62 (5th Cir. 2014) , cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015) . In Teran

Salas , we determined that the app ellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted under Te x as Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50886 Document: 00513079078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 13

- 50886

2 would not qualify as a f ederal drug trafficking offense. See Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d at 458. Hernandez

- Mejia has not demonstrated “ a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute under an ‘ administering ’ theory in a way that d oes not also constitute either ‘ dispensing ’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines

. ” Id. at 461

- 62. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRME D. Case: 13-50886 Document: 00513079078 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Curtis L. ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Timothy Lamar CHAMBERS v. STATE

CR-16-0194

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 22, 2015

d1214 

# Order

Clerk December 22, 2015

150703 & (87)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150703

COA: 315247

Wayne CC: 12

- 009230

- FC

RONALD JOHNSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to compel is DENIED. The application for

leave to appeal the November 4, 2014 judgment of the Court o f Appeals is considered.

We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to file a supplemental brief within

28 days after the date of this order addressing whether the defendant has established a

scoring error regarding PRV 1 (Prior High Severity Felony Convictions), MCL 777.51,

and his related claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, in light of the evidence

filed by the defendant in the Court of Appeals (as an exhibit to his July 18, 2014 motion

to remand) and in this Court, regarding his incar ceration history in Texas.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6027 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to revise the definition 

of a facility. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2023 

Mr. LOUDERMILK (for himself and Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia) introduced 

the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to revise 

the definition of a facility. 

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 ‘‘Exchange Regulatory 

5 Improvement Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF A FACILITY. 

7 Paragraph (2) of section 3(a) of the Securities Ex8 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)) is amended to read 

9 as follows: 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6027 IH

1 ‘‘(2) FACILITY.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘facility’, 

3 when used with respect to an exchange, means 

4 only— 

5 ‘‘(i) the exchange’s trading systems, 

6 which are— 

7 ‘‘(I) the hardware, software, and 

8 related network infrastructure an ex9 change uses to receive, acknowledge, 

10 rank, match, and execute orders in se11 curities traded on that exchange; and 

12 ‘‘(II) the hardware, software, and 

13 related network infrastructure an ex14 change uses to function as an exclu15 sive processor of real-time market 

16 data created by the exchange trading 

17 systems; 

18 ‘‘(ii) any premises or services made 

19 available by the exchange to an exchange 

20 member or other person for the purpose of 

21 providing physical space and equipment to 

22 enable such member or other person to lo23 cate the equipment of the member or other 

24 person in close physical proximity to the 

25 exchange’s trading systems; and 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6027 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) any premises or services made 

2 available by the exchange to an exchange 

3 member or persons associated with mem4 bers that exclusively connects such mem5 bers and persons associated with members 

6 to exchange trading systems for the pur7 pose of effecting or reporting a transaction 

8 on the exchange. 

9 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘facility’, 

10 when used with respect to an exchange, does 

11 not include any properties, premises, or services 

12 that can legally be offered by a person or entity 

13 that is not required to register as a national se14 curities exchange registered under section 6.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SERGIO JIMENEZ-PALMA, a.k.a. Juan

Kamarillo-Rosas,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 13-10181

 13-10183

D.C. Nos. 4:12-cr-02273-DCB

 4:07-cr-01850-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Jimenez-Palma appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the 18-month

FILED

JAN 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez-Palma contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to explain the revocation sentence and by using his prior illegal reentry sentence,

which resulted from a Guidelines-calculation error, as a benchmark in fashioning

the instant sentences. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court

adequately explained the aggregate sentence and used the Guidelines range as the

starting point and initial benchmark before determining that an upward variance

was appropriate.

Jimenez-Palma further contends that the alleged procedural errors rendered

his sentences substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing Jimenez-Palma’s sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the

totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including

his failure to be deterred and breach of the court’s trust. See id; United States v.

Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10181 & 13-10183
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02894]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0029]


Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events, Sector St. 
Petersburg

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the 
Bradenton Area River Regatta, a high-speed Powerboating event, for 
February 12, 2022, to provide for the safety of life on navigable 
waterways during this event. During the enforcement periods, the 
operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with 
directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated representative.

DATES: The regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on 
February 12, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notification of enforcement, call or email MST1 Michael D. Shackleford 
telephone 813-228-2191 option 3, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da9eeaedf7899798f78ebbb7aabbf78d8d979aafa9b9bdf4b7b3b6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db9febecf6889699f68fbab6abbaf68c8c969baea8b8bcf5b6b2b7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local 
regulations in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703, Line No. 2 for 
the Bradenton Area River Regatta on February 12, 2022 from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on 
navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine 
events, Sector St. Petersburg, Sec.  100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703, 
Line No. 2, Sec.  100.703, specifies the location of the regulated area 
for the Bradenton Area River Regatta which encompasses portions of the 
Manatee River near Bradenton, FL. During the enforcement periods, if 
you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply 
with directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated 
representative.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, 
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement 
period via the Local Notice to Mariners and/or marine information 
broadcasts.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Matthew A. Thompson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2022-02894 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT
31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Brion
D. Umidi, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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 registrant’s 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 officers 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 10, 2008
 
 By:
                /s/
      BRION D. UMIDIName:
                Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
                Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
STATE EX REL. Stanley Lee REED v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0577

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Realtor's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 16 - 00139 - CR No. 10 - 16 - 00140 - CR No. 10 - 16 - 00141 - CR No. 10 - 16 - 00142 - CR No. 10 - 16 - 00143 - CR IN RE TROY DANIEL TH OELE Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 4, 2016 , Troy Daniel Thoele filed a document in this Court titled “On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus from final convi ction from the 272 nd Judicial District Court of Brazos County, Texas.” In the application, Thoele requests this Court to, “issue a Writ of Prohibition or injunction prohibiting [Respondent] from asking for, or accepting assistance from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, or any under the employ from involvement in Relator’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” We will issue a writ of prohibition only to protect our jurisdiction. In re Simmonds ,In re Thoele Page 2

271 S.W.3d 874, 878 (Tex. App.

- Waco 2008, no pet. ). Its use is limited to cases in which we have actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding. Id . Thoele has not identified a pending proceeding over which this court has jurisdiction and by which this court might have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to prohibit a future act by Respondent. Thus, we have no pending jurisdiction to protect or preserve by way of a writ of prohibition, and we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibitio n. It appears that Th o e le has a writ of habeas corpus pending in t he Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 11.07. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P RO . A NN . art. 11.07 § 3 (a) (b) (West 2015). An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over post

- conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 512

- 13 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294

- 95 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2003, no pet.) The Court of Criminal Appeals and this court have recognized that “the exclusive post

- conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07.” Olivo v. Sta te, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.)
. Because we have nothing pending in this Court, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition, and we have no jurisdict ion over a post
- conviction habeas corpus proceeding in a felony case, we dismiss Thoele’s petition for lack of jurisdiction
.In re Thoele Page 3 AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed June 9, 2016 Do n ot p ublish [OT06]