alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nazario MARQUEZ-FLORES, a.k.a. Nazario Flores Marquez, a.k.a. Nazario Marquez Flores, a.k.a. Nazario Marquez-Florez, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 16-10284, 16-10298

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*959Submitted May 8, 2017 ***

Filed May 11, 2017

William G. Voit, Attorney, Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nazario Marquez-Flores, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Nazario Marquez-Flores appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the consecutive 18-month, sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Marquez-Flores’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Marquez-Flores the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief in these direct appeals.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondents, *v.*Louis Valle, Appellant.

Argued October 13, 1943;

decided December 8, 1943.

*Elvin N. Edioards and Joseph Lonardo*for appellant.

*Ediuard J. Neary, District Attorney (Philip Huntington*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction [of murder in the first degree] affirmed. Appeal from judgment of conviction of murder in. the second degree dismissed. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Jesse M. Hughes et al., Respondents, *v.*Henry Billinghurst, impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued December 18, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

*James O. Gochrane*for the appellant.

*M A. Raymond*for the respondents.

All concur for affirmance on opinion of Gardner, referee.

Judgment affirmed.
#### United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albury FRANCIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6963

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Albury Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Philip Holbrook, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ethan A. Ontjes, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albury Francis appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Francis,*No. 5:01-cr-00094-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. filed June 22, 2016 *&*entered June 23, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

ORO Pecanlands, Inc., * From the 220th District Court

of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. CV16014.

Vs. No. 11-15-00172-CV * November 19, 2015

Louisa Kaiser Company, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered ORO Pecanlands, Inc.’s motion to dismiss its 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in 

accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred 

by reason of this appeal are taxed against ORO Pecanlands, Inc.
#### Arden J. KIRKPATRICK, an individual; Bonnie L. Kirkpatrick, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56062

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*752Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Patricia Renee Rodriguez, Attorney, Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Yaw-Jiun Wu, Robert A. Bailey, Robert Collings Little, Esquire, Attorney, Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Tryt-ten, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEÁVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arden J. Kirkpatrick and Bonnie L. Kirkpatrick appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging claims based on Wells Fargo Bank’s alleged failure to respond to the Kirkpatricks’ loan modification applications. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,*598 F.3d 549, 553 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Kirkpatricks’ claim alleging a violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2) because the Kirkpatricks’ applications at issue were duplicative and did not fall within the scope of the regulations. *See*12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(i) (“A servicer is only required to comply with the requirements of this section for a single complete loss mitigation application for a borrower’s mortgage loan account.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of recorded documents related to the foreclosure of their property. *See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the standard of review and noting that a court may rely on matters of public record that are not subject to reasonable dispute).

We do not consider the Kirkpatricks’ argument regarding whether there was a material violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.10 due to the accrual of fees and penalties because these allegations are new on appeal and inconsistent with their complaint. *See Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,*713 F.3d 502, 510-11 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining to consider a new argument that was not consistent with the operative complaint and would effectively be an attempt to amend the operative complaint on appeal); *see also Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal are not considered).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0987
  doi:10.3000/19770987.CA2014.011.mlt |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 11A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 5715ta' Jannar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

doi:10.3000/19770987.CA2014.011.mlt

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 11A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 5715ta' Jannar 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rettifika |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Rettifika għan-Notifika ta' post tax-xogħol vakanti għal Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Aġenzija Ferrovjarja Ewropea (ERA), fi Franza (Aġent Temporanju — grad AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (ĠU C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

Rettifika

2014/C 011A/01

Rettifika għan-Notifika ta' post tax-xogħol vakanti għal Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Aġenzija Ferrovjarja Ewropea (ERA), fi Franza (Aġent Temporanju — grad AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (ĠU C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(ĠU C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

REVIŻJONI TAL-ĠU C A KOMPETIZZJONI

Hawn taħt għandek issib il-lista ta' C A ppubblikati matul din is-sena.

Ħlief meta indikat mod ieħor, il-Ġurnali Uffiċjali huma ppubblikati fil-lingwi kollha.

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

5

6

11

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

Rettifika

| 15.1.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 11/1

---

Rettifika għan-Notifika ta' post tax-xogħol vakanti għal Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Aġenzija Ferrovjarja Ewropea (ERA), fi Franza

(Aġent Temporanju — grad AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 6 A tal-10 ta' Jannar 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

F'paġna 4, taħt “Il-proċedura tal-applikazzjoni”, il-ħolqa fit-tielet paragrafu għandha tinqara kif ġej:

“https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/”.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,153
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,741
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     44,816
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,864
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,598
<LOANS>                                        227,429
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,677
<DEPOSITS>                                     218,438
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,623
<LONG-TERM>                                     42,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 298,677
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,806
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,619
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   202
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,627
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,478
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,109
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,518
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       51
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,015
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,015
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,640
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.845
<LOANS-NON>                                        419
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   330
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,081
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,212
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       50
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,214
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,214
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 833 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 833

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify 
     the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 19 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

   Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dole, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
  D'Amato, Mr. Burns, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify 
     the depreciable life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
    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 ``Semiconductor Investment Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIABLE LIFE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(e)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to classification of property) 
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking 
the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) any semiconductor manufacturing 
                        equipment.''
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clause (ii) and by 
        redesignating clauses (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) as clauses 
        (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively.
            (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(g)(3) of such Code is 
        amended by striking the following:

                        ``(B)(ii)..............................     5''
        and inserting the following:

                        ``(A)(iii).............................    3''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to equipment placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6753 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6753

 To amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to provide for 
    the removal and dismissal of qualified civil liability actions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

Ms. Hageman (for herself, Mr. Fry, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. McClain, 
Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Clyde) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to provide for 
    the removal and dismissal of qualified civil liability actions.

    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 ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Arms Act Federal Jurisdiction Act'' or the ``PLCAA Federal Jurisdiction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL AND DISMISSAL OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS.

    Section 3 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 
U.S.C. 7902) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Removal and Dismissal.--In any action before a State court in 
which a defendant that is a manufacturer, seller, or trade association 
asserts that the action is a qualified civil liability action, the 
manufacturer, seller, or trade association may remove the action to the 
district court of the United States for the district and division 
embracing the place wherein it is pending, and such district court of 
the United States shall have jurisdiction to determine whether such 
action is a qualified civil liability action, and dismiss the action 
accordingly.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6412 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to require oil polluters to pay 

the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to require oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Big Oil Bailout Pre5 vention Unlimited Liability Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIMITS ON LIABILITY FOR OFFSHORE 

7 FACILITIES. 

8 Section 1004(a)(3) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

9 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘plus 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6412 IH

1 $75,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘and the liability of the re2 sponsible party under section 1002’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) Registration Statement Nos. 333-149583 and 333-163842 of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. on Form S-3; and (ii) Registration Statement No. 333-164852 of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 1, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph indicating the financial statements of the Company were prepared from the separate records maintained by Enterprise Products Partners L.P. or affiliates and may not necessarily be indicative of the conditions that would have existed or the results of operations if the Company had been operated as an unaffiliated entity), and the effectiveness of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. and subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2010.











/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Houston, Texas


March 1, 2011
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0339 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0339

**2002/339/EC: Commission Decision of 2 May 2002 amending for the ninth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 1583) **

*
Official Journal L 116 , 03/05/2002 P. 0063 - 0074 *

Commission Decision

of 2 May 2002

amending for the ninth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2002) 1583)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/339/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/298/EC(2), and in particular Article 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/297/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of two additional equine semen collection centres.

(3) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the third country concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 May 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001, p. 63.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 101, 17.4.2002, p. 46.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Clarence MACY, Appellant.

No. 10681.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 3, 1966.

Decided Oct. 14, 1966.

*582T. R. Bryan, Sr., Wilkesboro, N. C., for appellant.

William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty. (H. Marshall Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief) for appellee.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant assails his conviction of offenses in connection with an illicit still, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5601(a) (1), 5601(a) (4), 5222 and 5601(a) (7), and 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) (1), on the ground that the still was discovered through an illegal search. Our examination of the record discloses no error of the District Court in sustaining the search and in adjudging the appellant guilty.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 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 interCLICK, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Mathews, Chief Executive
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 to my
knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
 
 
 /s/
      Michael MathewsMichael
      Mathews
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
 Dated:
March 31, 2010
  
  
 In
connection with the annual report of interCLICK, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Roger Clark, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.
 
 /s/
      Roger ClarkRoger
      Clark
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
 Dated:
March 31, 2010