alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FAATAFA, Plaintiff v. VAOIA, Defendant

No. 11-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Satala”]

July 10, 1913

J. C. PARKER, *Senior Member;*J. L. DWYER, *Member;*and TUIASOSOPO, *Member*

DECISION

The plaintiff, Faatafa, claims that Vaoia, defendant, has encroached upon her land, in attempting to give a portion of the land Satala to Salavao. The land is a small piece of land situated inland, as shown by the plan filed by Vaoia.

The defendant denies that Faatafa owns any land included in the land “Satala”, and on behalf of himself and on behalf of Vaivao, a Leloaloa Chief, whose interests are identical with those of Vaoia, claims all the land which Faatafa has claimed.

On the side of the plaintiff, therefore, the controversy is a boundary dispute — the plaintiff claiming all land west of a certain watercourse, well known to both parties. Defendant denies that the watercourse is a boundary and claims that he adjoins on the west with Vaivao, whose interests are identical with those of the defendant, through the name Loloaso.

The case is complicated by the fact that Vaoia claims as the holder of the name Loloaso, whereas he has given up the name Loloaso, and the present holder of the name Loloaso' has not appeared in the. Court during this trial. The *276Court was further embarrassed by the tactics of defendant in referring to the interests of Loloaso and Vaivao being identical, and at other times referring to certain property of Vaivao or of Loloaso.

The witnesses of the plaintiff told straightforward stories of the manner whereby Faatafa obtained her right on the land; proof has been given that Faatafa and her ancestors have cultivated the land to some extent and have retained possession of the land .to the present day. The boundary claimed by the plaintiff is a watercourse, a natural and probable boundary.

The evidence of the defendant in opposition has been weak, and contradictory, and the testimony of Vaivao in particular was unworthy of belief.

From a preponderance of evidence the Court is constrained ,to give judgment in favor of the plaintiff and a decree will issue accordingly, declaring the watercourse shown in the upper portion of the plan filed in this Court, bearing approximately 342 degrees, to be the eastern boundary of the land of Faatafa.

Costs are assessed at $40.00, of which Vaoia will pay $25.00 and Faatafa will pay $15.00.
#### U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark F. SPANGLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-36023

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Emily Rosen, Stephen G. Yoder, Tracey Hardin, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Securities *&*Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mark F. Spangler, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and • FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mark F. Spangler appeals pro se from the district court’s default judgment in the government’s civil enforcement action alleging violations of the Investment Advis-ors Act of 1940 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC,*840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), *See Eitel v. McCool,*782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors for determining whether to enter default judgment). The district court did not err in considering the impact of Spangler’s criminal conviction on its evaluation of the default judgment factors. *See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc,,*505 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] final judgment retains its collateral estoppel effect, if any, while pending appeal.”).

We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 02-22]

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Wednesday, February 23, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. EST.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference. There will be no physical meeting place.

# STATUS: 

Open. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting via teleconference should contact Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tele: (202) 616-6975, two business days in advance of the meeting. Individuals will be given call-in information upon notice of attendance to the Commission.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law 114-328.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for information, advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, and requests for teleconference dial-in information may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

Jeremy R. LaFrancois,

Chief Administrative Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2022-03157 Filed 2-10-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4256

___________

Ronnie Patterson, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States District

* Court for the District of Minnesota.

Bob Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc., a *

Minnesota corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant/Appellee, *

*

Allstate Insurance Company, a foreign *

corporation; Jayhawk Acceptance *

Corporation, a foreign corporation, *

 *

Defendants. *

 *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 1998

Filed: June 29, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, ROSS, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-

Ronnie Patterson appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary

1

judgment and from its denial of his motion to amend his complaint to plead punitive

damages. Patterson sued Bob Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc., claiming violations of the Equal

Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d), the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail

Installment Sales Act, Minn. Stat. § 168.71(a)(1), and alleging common law

conversion. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' submissions, we

conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 391 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6132 

[Report No. 118–472] 

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable 

awnings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. BALDERSON (for himself and Ms. CASTOR of Florida) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

APRIL 26, 2024 

Additional sponsors: Mr. TURNER and Mr. WENSTRUP

APRIL 26, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6132 RH

A BILL 

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 

promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable awnings. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6132 RH

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 ‘‘Awning Safety Act 

5 of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD FOR RE7 TRACTABLE AWNINGS. 

8 (a) CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD RE9 QUIRED.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the 

10 enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Com11 mission shall promulgate, under section 553 of title 5, 

12 United States Code, a final consumer product safety 

13 standard for fixed and freestanding retractable awnings 

14 within the jurisdiction of the Commission to protect 

15 against the risk of death or serious injury related to the 

16 hazards associated with such awnings, including the risk 

17 of death or serious injury related to the awning unexpect18 edly opening and striking a person while removing the 

19 bungee tie-downs for the cover of the awning. 

20 (b) CPSC DETERMINATION OF SCOPE.—The Con21 sumer Product Safety Commission shall specify the types 

22 of retractable awning devices within the jurisdiction of the 

23 Commission that are within the scope of subsection (a) 

24 as part of a standard promulgated under this section, as 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 6132 RH

1 reasonably necessary to protect against hazards associated 

2 with retractable awnings. 

3 (c) TREATMENT OF STANDARD.—A consumer prod4 uct safety standard promulgated under subsection (a) 

5 shall be treated as a consumer product safety rule promul6 gated under sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product 

7 Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 391 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6132 

[Report No. 118–472] 

A BILL 

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commisawnings. uct safety standard with respect to retractable sion to promulgate a mandatory consumer prodAPRIL 26, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1





Form 10-K


Fortress Exploration, Inc.


File No. 000-26703





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Fortress Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pieter DuRand, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date:  March 25, 2010
By:
/s/  Pieter DuRandName
Pieter DuRandTitle
Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer


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


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Echo Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Echo Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Adnan SHAHZAD,

No. 16-11526 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 21, 2017

Jay Stevenson Weimer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern-District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Catherine Ann Rushlow Dunnavant, Dunnavant & Associates, P.L.L.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. '

PER CURIAM: *

Adnan Shahzad has appealed his jury conviction of enticement of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Shahzad’s arrest resulted from an Internet sting operation in which an officer posed as a 13-year-old girl. The superseding indictment alleged that Shahzad’s criminal conduct, if successful, would have constituted a violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.011, which criminalizes sexual assault of a child younger than age 17.

Shahzad contends that the superseding indictment narrowed the scope of Section 2422(b) by alleging that the would-be victim was age 13 and that it was constructively amended by the trial court’s instructions and by the Government’s arguments, which permitted conviction on the basis of a finding that the victim was younger than age 17. As Shahzad concedes, our review is for plain error because he failed to object that the indictment had been constructively amended. *See United States v. Bohuchot,*625 F.3d 892, 897 (5th Cir. 2010).

“[N]o constructive amendment arises where the evidence proves facts different from those alleged in the indictment, but does not modify an essential element of the charged offense.” *United States v. Munoz,*150 F.3d 401, 417 (5th Cir. 1998). It made no difference whether the would-be victim was age 13 or some other age, as long as the Government proved that Shahzad believed she was younger than age 17. *See*§ 22.011(a) & (c)(1); § 2422(b). There was ample evidence of such belief. Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, it was not professionally unreason*383able for counsel not to lodge an objection. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Shahzad contends that the state statute did not provide federal jurisdiction for the Section 2422(b) charge. The difference between the age thresholds in the two statutes merely narrows the applicability of the federal statute to the age range proscribed by state law and does not create an irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes. The district court’s jurisdiction was established by showing that Shahzad used facilities of interstate commerce, that is, a cellular telephone and a computer connected to the Internet. *See*§ 2422(b); *United States v. Barlow,*568 F.3d 215, 220-21 (5th Cir. 2009); *see also United States v. Lopez,*514 U.S. 549, 559, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure; Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a meeting on June 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *https://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# DATES:

June 7, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bridget Healy, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: February 8, 2022.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2022-02964 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul L. WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Friday, a.k.a. Garfield, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10339

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Philip Kimble, Law Office of P Kimble, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Paul L. Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a *387sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Williams contends that the district court erred in concluding that he did not “qualify” for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We agree that the court’s statement that Williams did not “qualify” for a reduction is ambiguous as to whether the court believed that Williams was ineligible for a reduction or was not deserving of one. Furthermore, assuming the court concluded that Williams was not deserving of a reduction, the record contains no explanation for why it reached that conclusion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order.

The record reflects that Williams is statutorily eligible for a reduction because his Guidelines range was lowered to 78-97 months under Amendment 782. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, on remand the district court shall determine whether it will exercise its discretion to lower Williams’s sentence and explain its decision. *See United States v.*Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2013).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

87 FR 6902, 7 February 2022.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The following item will not be considered during the Open Meeting on Wednesday, February 9, 2022:
      - The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to its whistleblower rules.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

Dated: February 7, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-02914 Filed 2-7-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAIME ALVAREZ RUIZ, AKA Francisco
Alvarez, AKA Gerardo Casares, AKA Alex
Ramirez,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 71427

Agency No. A077

- 068

- 317

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Alvarez Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal fr om an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 71427

and relief under the C onvention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’ s

factual findings

. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We

d eny in part and dismiss in part the petiti on for review.

As to past persecution, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz was not credible

regarding the only direct past harm he allegedly experienced in Mexico

, namely,

his claim of arrest and abuse by police . Alvarez Ruiz does not challeng e th is

finding. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 1080 (9th Cir. 2013)

(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s ope ning brief are deemed

waived). As to future harm, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz ’s proposed social

group was not cognizable. H e does not challenge this finding. See id. Further, we

lack jurisdiction to consider the new social group he presents to the court for the

first time

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner

must exhaust claims in administr ative proceedings below). Because Alvarez Ruiz

does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s basis for denying withholding of removal

,

we deny the petition for review as to this claim

.

Finally, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Alvarez Ruiz’s

CAT claim because he did not show it is more likel y than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of the government if returned to3 14

- 71427

Mexico

. See Silaya , 524 F.3d at 107 3

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.