alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carlos LUIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. L. MONTGOMERY, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-55596

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed October 06, 2017

Kenneth Harlan Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Kenneth H. Lewis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Zee Rodriguez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,-Mary Sanchez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Luis appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 22 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

1. Luis fails to identify any error in the instructions on first-degree murder and second-degree fetal murder—the offenses on which he was convicted. Under these circumstances, we can find no due process violation. Errors in state-law jury instructions alone will not sustain a federal due process claim. *Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 71-72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Although he claims that error in the instructions on lesser-included offenses infected his trial, he offers no explanation for how the alleged errors relieved the government of its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offenses on which he was actually convicted. *Middleton v. McNeil,*541 U.S. 433, 437, 124 S.Ct.. 1830, 158 L.Ed.2d 701 (2004).

2. Luis has not identified any independent due process right to have the jury correctly instructed on all lesser-included offenses. The Ninth Circuit has long rejected this type of habeas claim in non-*531capital cases, because the United States Supreme Court has expressly left this issue undecided. *See Solis v. Garcia,*219 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2000).

Even assuming such a claim existed, the California Court of Appeal found no error in the disputed instructions. *People v. Luis,*B240741, 2013 WL 4223695, at *11 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013). Moreover, the California Court of Appeal determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *Id.*Luis has not demonstrated that these conclusions were unreasonable. *See Davis v. Ayala,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2198-99, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) (holding that where a state court applies the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard “a federal court may not award habeas relief under § 2254 unless the *harmlessness determination itself*was unreasonable.” (emphasis in original) (quoting *Fry v. Pliler,*551 U.S. 112, 119, 127 S.Ct. 2321, 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007))).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The Murray Hill Bank. App’lt, v. Elizabeth Van Antwerp *et al.,*Resp’ts.

*Samuel Untermyer,*for app’lts; *Wm. C. Beecher,*for resp’ts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 21 N. Y. State Rep., 377.
#### Sylvester Holmes, Respondent, *v.*County of Erie, Appellant.

Argued November 15, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*Elmer R. Weil*and *Ralph A. Lehr*for appellant.

*Harry Rosenberg,*Monroe County Legal Adviser, as *amicus curiae,*in support of appellant.

*Truman H. Preston,*County Attorney, and *Charles T. Major*for Onondaga County and New York State County Officers’ Association, as *amici curiae*in support of appellant.

*Michael Catalano*and *Jacob Weissfeld*for respondent.

*799Order affirmed with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ. Dissenting: Lewis, J.
**Exhibit 31(a)**

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.; 

 

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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterlyreport is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the dateof our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: May 13, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6870 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6870

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to clarify creditor's rights 
 and remedies with respect to the consideration of immigration status 
    with respect to the extension of credit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

 Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Self, Mr. Norman, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Williams of 
 Texas, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. Mooney) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to clarify creditor's rights 
 and remedies with respect to the consideration of immigration status 
    with respect to the extension of credit, 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. CONSIDERATION OF IMMIGRATION STATUS WITH RESPECT TO THE 
              EXTENSION OF CREDIT.

    Section 701(b) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 
1691(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) to make an inquiry or to consider the status in the 
        United States under the immigration laws (as such term is 
        defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
        (8 U.S.C. 1101)) of an applicant if such inquiry is for the 
        purpose of ascertaining the creditor's rights and remedies 
        applicable to the particular extension of credit and not to 
        discriminate in a determination of creditworthiness.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6118 

To prohibit funding for the United Nations Human Rights Council until 

it condemns Hamas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2023 

Mrs. LUNA (for herself, Mr. OGLES, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mrs. SPARTZ, 

Mr. BIGGS, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BABIN, Mr. SANTOS, Mr. 

BRECHEEN, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. CURTIS, Ms. 

MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. STEUBE, and Mr. GOODEN of Texas) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit funding for the United Nations Human Rights 

Council until it condemns Hamas. 

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 ‘‘Stand with Israel Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS FOR THE UNITED NATIONS 

6 HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. 

7 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that Hamas, Iranian 

8 backed terrorists, on October 7, 2023, launched a massive, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6118 IH

1 unprovoked war on Israel by firing thousands of rockets, 

2 gunmen storming Israeli homes killing whoever they could 

3 find, resulting in the death and abduction of countless 

4 Israeli and American civilians. 

5 (b) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds may be obli6 gated or expended to provide assessed or voluntary con7 tributions or any other funding to the United Nations 

8 Human Rights Council until the United Nations Security 

9 Council and United Nations General Assembly adopts a 

10 resolution to condemn Hamas relating to its actions de11 scribed in subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
WATER

About MDE

Permits

Enforcement/Compliance

Programs

Calendar

Grants and Loans

Sign up for eMDE

MDE

HOME MARYLANDER BUSINESS RESEARCH CENTER

AIR

LAND

Jobs

.~----

--....,.. . u

;l "

.~~ Marcel/us Shale Safe

Drilling Initiative

looks at whether and how

gas drilling and production

can be done safely

MD

STAT

MDEStat

Data collection, evaluation

and accountability

workqroup

http://www.mde.state.md.uslPages/Home.aspx

Chesapeake Bay

Watershed

Implementation Plan

II WIP -- Our action plan to

restore & protect the Bay

and its tributaries

Lead Poisoning

Prevention

Working toward our goal of

no children with lead

poisoning

Problem Solver I Maryland.gov I Online Services I State Agencies Phone Directory

Search

NEWSROOM email frIend print pa~

Action on Climate Change

2011 Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Reduction Act

Draft Plan

"', ,'\.

"

- "'Ii

HDE Outreach, Education

and Events

Together we can all make a

difference - leam more

about MDE outreach and

how you can help

Governor Martrn 0 Malley

Lt (lO\,lI'noc Anll'looy G Blown

~

NI.'1t(tri a Prf)h/~·nt

f:..me-r;;l"",it·\; 866. ~IDJ::(,"070

Notices & Alerts

110 Ozone Authority SIP

Emergency Tidal Wetlands License

and Penmit Infonmation & Nontidal

Wetland and Waterway Guidance /'

\

Public Hearing on the Lead .J

Infrastructure SIP Revision

Revised industrial stormwater

permit proposed

Updated: New locations for

Disposal of Unwanted Radioactive

Material

Air Quality Forecast

Fish Consumption Advisory

Shellfish Harvesting Advisory &

Maps

More>

News

*"'Media Advisory*'" Maryland First

Lady Katie O'Malley to Present

"Rethink Recycling" Sculpture

Contest Awards

Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown

Addresses MDE's 2nd Annual Clean

Water Innovations Trade Show,

Recognizes Innovative Storm water

Project

MDE Secretary Summers

celebrates the 40th anniversary of

the Clean Water Act with Parkway

Elementary students

Lead Poisoning cases Drop Overall,

Rise in Properties Not Previously

Covered by Md, Law

Waterways in St. Mary's, Calvert

Counties Reclassified for Shellfish

Harvesting

More>

Featured Clips

Frederick News-Post: Md. Sec. of

the Environment visits Parkway

Elementary to celebrate Clean

Water Act anniversary

aaito. Sun: Survey shows fewer

Md. children suffered lead

poisoning in 2011

National Academy eX Science:

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

Baltimore Sun editorial: Impact of

dirty air must be taken into

account

11114/2012
#### Maria Schwartz, App’lt, *v.*The Women’s Mutual Insurance and Accident Co. of America, Resp’t.

Appeal by_ plaintiff from order setting aside judgment entered as of default and compelling plaintiff to receive defendant’s answer.

*Arnoux, Ritch*& *Woodford,*for app’lt; *John A. Kamping,*for resp’t.

Freedman, J.

It would serve no useful purpose to discuss at length the imputations of the attorneys made against each other in this case. After due consideration of all that has been urged on both sides, I have arrived at the conclusion, that the order appealed from should he modified so as to read, after the recitals contained therein, as follows, viz.:

*1026“ *Ordered,*that upon defendant’s paying within ten days after the entry of this order, as hereby modified, ten dollars costs of motion, and at the same timeserving an answer duly verified to the complaint in this action, the judgment entered herein, as of default, by plaintiff against the defendant on the 19th day of January, 1891, be and the same hereby is vacated and set aside, and that,, upon defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of this order, the motion of' the defendant' be and the same hereby is denied, with ten dollars costs,” and that, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., and McAdam, J., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144543

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144543

COA: 303886

Saginaw CC: 09-032995-FC;

OSCAR AGUSTUS WILLIAMS, 09-032996-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### C. Chester Du Mond, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*Lew Wohl et al., Copartners Doing Business as Centerville Dairy and Merchandising Co., Respondents.

Submitted October 5, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*696
      *Robert O. Blabey*and *Donald L. Brush*for appellant.

*Herbert L. Maltinshy*and *Harry L. Marcus*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TRACY SALTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-980

[July 20, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-008021-CF-10A.

Tracy Salter, Sneads, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0871
  doi:10.3000/19770871.CA2014.011.dan |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 11A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 57. årgang15. januar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0871

doi:10.3000/19770871.CA2014.011.dan

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 11A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

57. årgang15. januar 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Berigtigelser |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Berigtigelse til den opslåede stilling som administrerende direktør for Det Europæiske Jernbaneagentur (ERA) i Frankrig (Midlertidigt ansat — lønklasse AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 6 A af 10. januar 2014) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

Berigtigelser

2014/C 011A/01

Berigtigelse til den opslåede stilling som administrerende direktør for Det Europæiske Jernbaneagentur (ERA) i Frankrig (Midlertidigt ansat — lønklasse AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 6 A af 10. januar 2014)

(Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 6 A af 10. januar 2014)

1

OVERSIGT OVER UDVÆLGELSESPRØVER I EU-TIDENDE, C ... A-UDGAVEN

Nedenstående liste viser, hvilke udvælgelsesprøver der er offentliggjort i indeværende år.

Medmindre andet er angivet, er de pågældende EU-Tidender udkommet på alle sprog.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

Berigtigelser

| 15.1.2014 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 11/1

---

Berigtigelse til den opslåede stilling som administrerende direktør for Det Europæiske Jernbaneagentur (ERA) i Frankrig

(Midlertidigt ansat — lønklasse AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 6 A af 10. januar 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Side 4, »Ansøgningsprocedure«, tredje afsnit, linket, læses således:

»https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/«.

---
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0638 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0638

**2001/638/EC: Commission Decision of 2 August 2001 amending Decision 92/452/EEC as regards the lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 2447) **

*
Official Journal L 223 , 18/08/2001 P. 0024 - 0025 *

Commission Decision

of 2 August 2001

amending Decision 92/452/EEC as regards the lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community

(notified under document number C(2001) 2447)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/638/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Decision 94/113/EC(2),

Whereas:

(1) The competent veterinary services of Canada and United States have forwarded a request for amendment to the list, established by Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/184/EC(4), of teams officially approved in their territories for the export of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community.

(2) Guarantees regarding compliance with the requirements specified in Article 8 of Directive 89/556/EEC have been received by the Commission.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) 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 92/452/EEC is amended as follows:

1. the following line is added to the lines concerning Canadian teams: ">TABLE>"

2. the following lines are added to the lines concerning US-teams: ">TABLE>"

3. the lines concerning the US teams E 512 (91PA005) and E 962 (91CA040) are respectively replaced by the following: ">TABLE>"

4. the lines concerning the Canadian teams E 607, E 660 and E 933 are respectively replaced by the following: ">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 August 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 53, 24.2.1994, p. 53.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 67, 9.3.2001, p. 77.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice CROMRATIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6582

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 19, 2017

Decided: October 13, 2017

Maurice Cromratie, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charity L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Cromratie seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cromratie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.2

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 Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of drugstore.com, inc. (the
Company) for the period ending December 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Potter, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Robert P. PotterRobert P. PotterVice President and Chief Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

September 10, 2008