alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses SIMMONS, a.k.a. Fam, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10262 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 1, 2017)

R. Brian Tanner, James D. Durham, E. Gregory Gilluly, Jr., Tania D. Groover, Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Moses Simmons, Pro Se

*632Before HULL, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Amy Lee Copeland, appointed counsel for Moses Simmons, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Simmons’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.1

1

. We acknowledge that Simmons expressed dissatisfaction with his prior counsel’s performance leading up to his sentencing and that he might wish to argue that counsel was ineffective in that respect. Such claims, however, generally "are not considered for the first time on direct appeal,” but rather are best reserved for postconviction proceedings. *United States v. Tyndale, 209*F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); *see Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-959]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Medi-Physics Inc. 
dba GE Healthcare

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Medi-Physics Inc. dba GE Healthcare has applied to be 
registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for 
further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 1, 2022. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before April 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on December 16, 2021, Medi-Physics Inc. dba GE 
Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-
1412, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic 
class(es) of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine.................................    9041  II
Ecgonine................................    9180  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import derivatives of the listed controlled 
substances to be used for the manufacture of a diagnostic product and 
reference standards. No other activity for these drug codes is 
authorized for this registration.
    Approval of permit applications will occur only when the 
registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized 
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import 
of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished 
dosage forms for commercial sale.

Matthew J. Strait,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04371 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6784 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6784

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for protective 
     regulations when a species is listed as an endangered species.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

 Mr. Stauber (for himself, Mr. Newhouse, Ms. Hageman, Ms. Boebert, and 
  Mr. Bentz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for protective 
     regulations when a species is listed as an endangered species.

    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 ``ESA Flexibility Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    (a) Protective Regulations.--Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Protective Regulations.--
            ``(1) Threatened species.--Whenever any species is listed 
        as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c), the 
        Secretary shall issue such regulations as the Secretary deems 
        necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such 
        species.
            ``(2) Endangered species.--Whenever any species is listed 
        as an endangered species pursuant to subsection (c), the 
        Secretary may issue such regulations as the Secretary deems 
        necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such 
        species.
            ``(3) Prohibition on certain activities.--Except as 
        provided in paragraph (4), the Secretary may, by regulation 
        issued under this subsection, prohibit with respect to any 
        threatened or endangered species any act prohibited under 
        section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 
        9(a)(2) in the case of plants.
            ``(4) Exception.--Regulations described by paragraph (3) 
        shall apply in any State which has entered into a cooperative 
        agreement pursuant to section 6(c) only to the extent that such 
        regulations have also been adopted by such State.''.
    (b) Exception to Prohibited Acts.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
section 9(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1538(a)(1) and (2)) are each amended by inserting ``by regulations 
issued under section 4(d) or'' after ``as provided''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Hunt v. The Farmers’ Insurance Company.

Justice’s Court: taking case prom jury. A justice of the peace has no power to take a case from a jury and dismiss it on the ground that the evidence shows that there is no cause of action. (See cases cited in opinion).

*Appeal from Humboldt District Court.*— Hon. George IT. Carr, Judge.

Filed, March 12, 1888.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant before a justice of the peace on a policy of insurance. There was a trial by jury, verdict for plaintiff, and judgment rendered thereon. The defendant removed the case to the district court by a writ of error. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action, and rendered judgment against him for costs, and the plaintiff appeals.

*232
      *J. C.*Raymond, for apjiellant.

*C larlc & Taf*t, for appellee.

Seevers, C. J.

The amount in controversy being less than one hundred dollars, we are required to answer the following question propounded by the district court: “ In an action before a justice of the peace, brought upon a policy of insurance, there being a clause in said policy that no action can be maintained thereon unless brought within six months from the time of said loss, after the evidence is all introduced by the parties before a jury, and it appearing therefrom that more than six months had elapsed from the time of said loss to the commencement of said action,- has a justice a light to take the case from the jury and dismiss plaintiff’s action?” It has been held that a justice of the peace has no power to instruct a jury, and that he possesses only such powers as are conferred by. statute. *St. Joseph Manf. Co. v.*Harrington, 53 Iowa, 380. A justice has the power to set aside a default, or the dismissal of a cause. Code, sec. 3543. But he cannot arrest a judgment or set aside the verdict of a jury. Code, sec. 3550 ; *Rhodes v. De Bow,*5 Iowa, 260 ; *Dupont v. Downing,*6 Iowa, 172. The question implies that evidence was introduced before the jury showing that more -than six months had elapsed after the loss .before the action was commenced, and we are asked whether, in such case, the justice has the power to take the case from the jury and dismiss the action. We are clearly of the opinion that he cannot, for the reason that no such power is conferred by statute. We cannot imagine a case in which a justice would have such power. When a jury is called before a justice in a case, and duly impaneled, the justice cannot take the case from the jury, his only power being to discharge the jury if they fail to agree. The foregoing question must be answered in the negative, and the judffment of the district court

Reversed.
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

January 13, 2015

Order 

January 13, 2015

149948 & (21)

STEPHANIE LAWSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

ANTHONY NAM and NAM BUILDING 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants.

SC: 149948

COA: 320523

Washtenaw CC: 12-000182-NO

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to 

appeal is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs or fees to either 

party.
---

Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to18 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 Blink Couture Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Penny
Green, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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.

Dated: October 28, 2007

|By: | /s/ Penny Green            
|--- | ---------------------------
|    | Penny Green                
|    | Chief Executive Officer    
|    | and Chief Financial Officer

---
**EXHIBIT -32.1**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/    | Mossimo Giannulli                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mossimo Giannulli                       |
|   | Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 14, 2005                  |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HASBEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM 10-QTO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYGENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                    EOTT ENERGY OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                                December 18, 2001


Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.
4111 East 37th Street North
Wichita, Kansas 67220

Re:      Amendment and Consent to Assignment
         Crude Oil Supply and Terminalling Agreement dated December 1, 1988 by
         and between Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. and EOTT Energy Operating
         Limited Partnership, as amended, (EOTT Contract No. 37562)

Gentlemen:

         This letter agreement, when executed by you in the manner provided for
below, shall serve to modify and amend that certain Crude Oil Supply and
Terminalling Agreement ("Agreement") dated December 1, 1998 by and between Koch
Petroleum Group, L.P. ("Koch") and EOTT Energy Operating Limiting Partnership
("EOTT") as follows:

1.       EOTT hereby consents to the assignment of the rights and obligations of
         Koch under the Agreement to Koch Supply & Trading, L.P. effective as of
         January 1, 2002. Koch Supply & Trading, L.P., by its execution of this
         letter agreement, hereby agrees, pursuant to the provisions of Section
         10.6 (b) of the Agreement, to be bound by all the terms and conditions
         of the Agreement.

2.       Under Section 1.3(b) of the Agreement, where the words "Koch's Posting
         for West Texas/New Mexico Intermediate crude oil" appear they shall be
         deleted and replaced by "Koch's posting for West Texas/New Mexico
         Intermediate crude oil as provided by Koch Supply & Trading, L.P.".

3.       Under Section 3.2(a) of the Agreement, the words "as provided by Koch
         Supply & Trading, L.P.," shall be inserted on the second line between
         the words "Intermediate" and "gravity".

         Except as herein above modified, all the other terms and conditions of
this Agreement and any previous amendments thereto, shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.

EOTT ENERGY OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BY:      EOTT ENERGY CORP., ON BEHALF OF ITS GENERAL PARTNER
         EOTT ENERGY GENERAL PARTNER, L.L.C.

By:      /s/ Dana R. Gibbs rl
         -----------------------------------
         Dana R. Gibbs
         President and COO

Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.
By:      KPG/GP, LLC its general partner

By:
         -----------------------------
Its:
         -----------------------------

Koch Supply & Trading, L.P.
By:      KS&T/GP, LLC its general partner

By:
         -----------------------------
Its:
         -----------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Manuel COLSON, Jr., a.k.a. Lee Colson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16642 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 29, 2017)

*599Christopher P. Canova, Chris John Thielemann, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, PL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph F. DeBelder, Randolph Patterson Murrell, Richard Michael Summa, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lee Colson Jr. appeals his sentence of 30 months of imprisonment for distributing marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D); distributing cocaine base, *id.*§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, cocaine, cocaine base, and alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone, *id.*§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, *id.*§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Colson also received a mandatory consecutive sentence of 60 months of imprisonment for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i), which he does not challenge on appeal. Colson argues that the district court erred by adding three points to his criminal history score for a prior sentence of 22 months of probation that was conditioned on him spending every night in jail. We affirm.

Any error in adding three points to Col-son’s criminal history score was harmless. The district court made clear that it would have imposed the same sentence without adding the criminal history points. *See United States v. Keene,*470 F.3d 1347, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court stated that, “even if [itj had accepted [Col-son’s] argument, the range would have been 27 to 33 months” and “any sentence less than 30 months ... would be inadequate because if [he] had done 22 months and a year and a day, then continue[d] to sell drugs repeatedly, that a 30 months sentence is, if anything, a generous sentence.”

Colson’s sentence, below the guideline range, is reasonable. *See id.*at 1349; *see also*18 U.S.C. § 3653(a). Colson had 14 prior convictions for battery, burglary of a structure, possession of a controlled substance, possession of contraband in a detention facility, and driving while his license was suspended, and the state courts revoked most of his sentences of probation. Undeterred, Colson sold drugs from his residence on several occasions while he was, in the words of the district court, “heavily armed.” Even so, the district court found that Colson’s criminal history score overstated his criminal record because many of his prior convictions involved traffic offenses and varied downward from his advisory guideline range of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment. The district court committed no error.

We AFFIRM Colson’s sentence.
EXHIBIT 13.1
 
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:
 
 The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: June 9, 2010
By:/s/ Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínName: Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDated: June 9, 2010
By:/s/ José Luis Guerrero CortesName: José Luis Guerrero CortesTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35.2
                                 ------------

                            WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                        ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

      Re: The servicing agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (as amended, the
"Agreement"), among Washington Mutual Bank as Servicer and Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. as Owner, with respect to CWALT 2006-J7 (the "Securitization").


      I, H. John Berens, a Senior Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank
(the "Servicer"), certify to the Owner, the Depositor and the Master Servicer
under the Securitization, the following for the 2006 fiscal year (the
"Relevant Year"):


1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of
performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Relevant Year.



Dated as of  February 22, 2007.

                                     /s/ H. John Berens
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Name:  H. John Berens
                                    Title: Senior Vice President