alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51302

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAAC MORENO, also known as Isaac Moreno-Prieto,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-166-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isaac Moreno

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal

offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants
PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3
CanadaTelephone
(604) 691-3000
Fax
(604) 691-3031
Internet
www.kpmg.ca   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  The Board of Directors Asanko Gold Inc. We consent to the use of our reports, each dated March 7, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Asanko Gold Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 40-F/A, Amendment No. 1. /s/ KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants April 21, 2014 Vancouver, Canada   KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG
network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative 
(KPMG International), a Swiss entity. 
KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
# Appendix C. Certification of public hearing

## DEPAR T MENT OF ECOLOGY

HEARING SUMMARY (revised)

M E M O R A N D U M

June 23, 2015

TO: Maia Bellon

Director

FROM: Cynthia Wall

Hearings Officer

SUBJECT: Public Hearing Summary on inclusion of SRCAA woodstove rules into the

State Implementation Plan

The Air Quality Program conducted two public hearing s (am and pm) on the inclusion of

Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) rules into the State Implementation Plan. The

hearing was held on April 2, 2015

, in the SRCAA conferen ce room. Air Quality was represented

by Karen Wood (ERO) and Joanna Ekrem (HQ) and SRCAA board members and staff were in

attendance. Brook Beeler attended as the public relations staff person. Joanna and Margee

Chambers from SRCAA gave a short presentat ion and answered questions during the Q/A

portion of the hearing.

Fourteen members of the public attended the morning hearing, and seven provided testimony.

Twenty members of the public attended the evening hearing, and twelve provided testimony.

**Summar y of Comments:** 

At the request of SRCAA, Ecology conducted two hearings on the inclusion of SRCAA

woodstove rules into the SIP

- something that hasn’t been a big issue in the past. Citizens

Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) felt oth erwise and packed the room for both hearings

(different folks for each hearing). The attitude of the crowd during the QA and the hearing was

intense . At times

, individual s threatened that they would continue with their right to burn

, regardless of the rules. No threats were made to or against any of the participants. Margee

(SRCAA) and Joanna had a very difficult job trying to explain this administrative action

incorporating “existing” rules in to the SIP . Attendees were under the impression that rules were

changing, they would not be able to use their existing woodstoves, that it was government over

reaching their authority, and unconstitutional. There also was a lot of discussion about the re al

risk to air quality coming from “chem trails” rather than woodstoves. The evening hearing was

video recorded by CAPR , who announced it would be posted to YouTube.

CW: jab

cc: Heather Bartlett , Water Quality Program Manager

Grant Pfeifer

, Director, Eastern Regional Office

Jim Bellatty, Water Quality Section Manager, ERO

Karen Wood , Department of Ecology, A Q

– ERO

Stu Clark, Department of Ecology, AQ

- HQ

Joanna Ekrem , Department of Ecology, AQ

– HQ

Bari Schreiner, Department of Ecology, AQ

- HQ

Brook Beeler

, Communications Manager , ERO

Margee Chambers, SRCAA
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 639 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 639

 To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States 
 against unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2023

     Mr. Takano (for himself, Ms. Tokuda, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Matsui) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States 
 against unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic.

    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 ``Korematsu-Takai Civil Liberties 
Protection Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DETENTION.

    Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Prohibition on Detention Based on Protected 
Characteristics.--
            ``(1) In general.--No individual may be imprisoned or 
        otherwise detained based solely on an actual or perceived 
        protected characteristic of the individual.
            ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `protected 
        characteristic' includes each of the following:
                    ``(A) Race.
                    ``(B) Ethnicity.
                    ``(C) National origin.
                    ``(D) Religion.
                    ``(E) Sex.
                    ``(F) Gender identity.
                    ``(G) Sexual orientation.
                    ``(H) Disability.
                    ``(I) Any additional characteristic that the 
                Attorney General determines to be a protected 
                characteristic.
            ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
        shall be construed to allow the Attorney General to remove a 
        characteristic described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of 
        paragraph (2) from the definition of the term `protected 
        characteristic' under this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
15.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:




1.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-11894) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee
Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US Employees (F),




2.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13268) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F), as amended, and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key
Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US Employees (F),




3.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105473) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee
Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US Employees (F),




4.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13378) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan Global Non-U.S. and the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001
U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan,




5.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-144823) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
2001 U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, and the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001
Employee Stock Purchase Plan Global Non-U.S., as amended,




6.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-144825) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
2007 U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and




7.           Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160330) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd.
2008 Equity Incentive Plan.




of our
reports dated June 28, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of AudioCodes Ltd., and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of AudioCodes Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.




/s/
      Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererTel-Aviv,
      Israel
              KOST
      FORER GABBAY & KASIERERJune
      28, 2010
              A
      Member of Ernst & Young
Global
#### IN RE: James E. BAUMANN, Debora K. Baumann, Debtors. James E. Baumann, Plaintiff-Appellant, Debora K. Baumann, Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, National Association, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-12615 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 1, 2017)

James E. Baumann, Pro Se

Lisa Monica Schiller, McGlinchey Stafford, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Brian Michael Guertin, Lauren Osa, Law Office of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HULL, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Baumann (“Baumann”), proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his appeal from a bankruptcy court order for lack of standing. PNC, NA (“PNC”) is the purported holder of a note on a residence owned by Baumann and his wife, Deborah. When PNC attempted to foreclose on the property, Baumann—but not his wife—filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. PNC moved to have the automatic stay lifted with regard to Baumann’s wife, as co-debtor on their residence, in order to pursue an in personam suit against her. The bankruptcy court granted the motion. Baumann challenged that decision in the district court and his appeal was dismissed for lack of standing because he was not a “person aggrieved” by the bankruptcy court’s order. This appeal followed.

After the close of briefing in this appeal, Baumann voluntarily dismissed his Chapter 13 case in the bankruptcy court. Because the issues raised on appeal involve the terms of Baumann’s Chapter 13 plan, this appeal was thereby rendered moot. See Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[Tjhe dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.”). Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0299 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0299

**2001/299/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2001 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 980) **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 12/04/2001 P. 0069 - 0070 *

Commission Decision

of 30 March 2001

amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat

(notified under document number C(2001) 980)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/299/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat(1), as last amended by Directive 1999/89/EC(2), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/7/EC(4), and in particular Article 10(2)(a),

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 94/85/EC(5), as last amended by Decision 2000/609/EC(6), established a list of third countries from which importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorised.

(2) Commission Decision 94/278/EC(7) drawing up a list of third countries from which Member States authorise imports of certain products subject to Directive 92/118/EEC, as last amended by Decision 2000/611/EC(8), specifies in part VIII of the Annex that eggs for human consumption are authorised from all third countries listed in Decision 94/85/EC.

(3) Iceland has requested to be authorised to export eggs for human consumption to the Community and written assurances have been received.

(4) Examination of these assurances has shown that this country satisfies the requirements of the Community for the importation of poultrymeat and eggs for human consumption. Therefore Decision 94/85/EC must be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 94/85/EC is replaced with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(4) OJ L 5, 5.1.2001, p. 27.

(5) OJ L 44, 17.2.1994, p. 31.

(6) OJ L 258, 12.10.2000, p. 49.

(7) OJ L 120, 11.5.1994, p. 44.

(8) OJ L 259, 13.10.2000, p. 64.

ANNEX

"ANNEX

This is a list in principle and importations shall fulfil the relevant animal and public health requirements

>TABLE>"
#### Jean Albert Tauzeide and Charles H. Holt, Pl’ffs, v. Francois Henry Jumel *et al.,*Def’ts.

Per Curiam.

It is a fact established in the case that the attorneys repre-. senting all the parties were made aware, in April, 1888, that Mr. Wheeler would no longer represent Chambruu as his attorney in the proceedings. After that Chambrun acted for himself, and with the assistance of Mr. Titus as his counsel. When the copy of the judgment was served in October on Mr. Wheeler it was made with this knowledge. And it does not seem to have been intended for Chambrun, for the admission of service was not taken for him, but for Jumel and others, without anything to indicate that Chambrun was intended to be included among these others.

To defeat it, or limit the right of appeal, the proof must show clearly that what the law has for that purpose prescribed has been performed; and that has not been in that manner shown. The proceedings of Chambrun in his own behalf may have been, as they probably were, irregular. But after practically acquiescing as the other parties did in the irregularity it is too late now to take the advantage of it, which would be secured by a dismissal of the appeal. The motion will be denied, but without costs.
#### WATSON v. COX.

Appeal from Ellis county.

*Distress Warrant*— Landlord *and Tenant.*— If a tenant, the rent ei npaid, is about to remove his property from the rented premises, without the consent of his landlord, such landlord is entitled to *315sue out a distress warrant against such property, whether the rent is due or not. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### George H. Westbrook, Appellant, *v.*Onondaga Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Counsel appeared June 17, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*Thomas J. Mangan*for appellant.

*Lewis C. Ryan*for respondent.

Appeal withdrawn on condition appellant pay respondent’s disbursements; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel JIMENEZ-ANTUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17731 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 28, 2017)

Laurel Boatright, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, Plaintiff-Appellee

Natasha Perdew Silas, Stephanie A. Kearns,. Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6813 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6813

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
 from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule related 
to revisions to the air emissions reporting requirements, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

   Mr. Good of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Donalds, Mr. 
Ogles, Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Perry, Mr. 
Hunt, Mr. Norman, Mr. Cline, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. 
 Alford, Mr. Baird, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
  Brecheen, Mr. Rosendale, and Mr. Williams of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
 from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule related 
to revisions to the air emissions reporting requirements, 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. REVISIONS TO THE AIR EMISSIONS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 
finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule titled ``Revisions to 
the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements'' and published August 09, 
2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 54118).
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio ORTEGA-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41430 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 10, 2017

*768Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Antonio Ortega-Mendez, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Ortega-Mendez 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortega-Mendez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ortega-Mendez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ortega-Mendez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
#### Martha S. PANASZEWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; Residential Funding Company, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-16942

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 11, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed September 13, 2017

Errol Wilfred Javier Zshornack, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of E. W. J. Zshornack, San Ramon, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee GMAC Mortgage LLC

Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Sev-erson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Residential Funding Company LLC

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN,-Circuit Judges, and'WHALEY,** District Judge.

*

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

**

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

*524MEMORANDUM ***

Martha Panaszewicz appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of her diversity action against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Residential Funding Company, LLC. Based on a promissory estoppel theory, Panaszewicz seeks to annul the trustee’s sale of her home and impose a constructive trust on the residence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. *Kahle v. Gonzales,*487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

Panaszewicz’s First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for promissory es-toppel under California law. *See Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,*697 F.3d 777, 792 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing *U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. California,*129 Cal.App.4th 887, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 905 (2005)). Panaszewicz failed to allege (1) that Appellees or their agents made any clear and unambiguous promises to postpone the foreclosure sale, and (2) any facts showing that she changed her legal position in reliance on those statements. *Id.*The district court therefore properly dismissed her complaint.

Because Panaszewicz did not make a *prima facie*case for promissory estoppel, the district court did not err in concluding that a constructive trust could not be imposed on the property. There are no alleged facts demonstrating that Appellees gained the property by misconduct, and Panaszewicz has not tendered or offered to tender the amount owed on the defaulted mortgage loan. *See Lona v. Citibank, N.A.,*202 Cal.App.4th 89, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 622, 633, 640 (2011). Thus, the district court was not required to exercise its equitable powers. *See id.*at 640.

Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in denying Panaszewicz leave to amend, as her complaint cannot be cured by further amendment. *See Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power,*623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

***

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