alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance Trent MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6174

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed October 18, 2017

Brandon T. Hale, Jessica Cardenas Jarvis, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rick E. Bailey, Conlee, Schmidt *&*Emerson, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant

Terrance Trent Mosley, Pro Se

Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Terrance Trent Mosley’s plea agreement. Mosley pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, provided his sentence was within the statutory maximum and not above the advisory guideline range determined by the district court to apply. Mosley’s sentence was below the statutory maximum and within the advisory guidelines range. Nevertheless, he filed a notice of appeal.

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per cu-riam). In response, Mosley’s counsel stated that there are no non-frivolous arguments that can be presented in response to the motion to enforce, citing *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and requesting that the case be dismissed without prejudice to allow Mosley to pursue a claim for ineffec*836tive assistance of counsel in a later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court gave Mosley an opportunity to file a pro se response to the motion to enforce, *see Anders,*386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, but he has not done so.

Under *Anders,*we have reviewed the motion and the record, and we conclude that Mosley’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver and that nothing in the record indicates that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his appellate rights or that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. *See Hahn,*359 F.3d at 1325 (describing factors this court considers to determine whether to enforce an appeal waiver).

Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and .judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maris C. POWELL, a.k.a. Maris Christopher Powell, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16099 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 22, 2017)

David Charles Waterman, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas A. Burns, appointed counsel for Maris Powell in this direct criminal appeal, 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 *654493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of Powell’s appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Powell’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
* Claimed confidential by submitter*








 

 

* Claimed confidential by submitter*
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.



I, Raymond L Arthur, Chief Financial Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/    RAYMOND L.
ARTHUR                         
|Raymond L. Arthur                                
|Executive Vice President -Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                    
|December 8, 2005
OWENS CORNING 

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

900 19TH STREET N.W. SUITE 250 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006 

202.639.6900 FAX: 202.639.0247 

 OWENS CORNING 

September 20, 2013 

By email: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

Daniel Cohen 

Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law 

Office of General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington DC 20585-0121 

RE: Ex Parte Memo

Dear Mr. Cohen: 

On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Julian Francis, VP & Managing Director Residential Insulation, Frank 

O’Brien Bernini, VP & Chief Sustainability Officer, Paul Smith, VP Building Materials Group Marketing, 

John Libonati, VP Government and Public Affairs, and I met with David Lee, Jeremy Williams, and Mark 

Lessans of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office. 

Owens Corning requested this meeting to cover a broad set of issues, including: 

1. DOE’s Challenge Home Program specifications, training, and sponsorship; 

2. Net-Zero Energy Home initiatives, including supporting research by DOE Labs; 

3. DOE’s Building America and Better Buildings Neighborhood Programs; 

4. DOE’s work on energy codes and standards; and 

5. Owens Corning’s Corporate/Global Sustainability efforts 

DOE staff informed Owens Corning of Federal Register Notices from April (per DOE’s participation in 

the ICC process), May (per DOE’s determination on the 2012 IECC), and August 2013 (per DOE’s 

efforts to assess code compliance). Specifically, DOE explained how it develops code proposals, in 

partnership with its Labs, and how it participates in the ICC/ASHRAE code/standard development 

processes. 

As buildings consume 40% or more of the energy in the nation, Owens Corning appreciates and values 

the opportunity to dialogue and work with DOE and others towards improving the energy efficiency of 

new and existing homes and buildings. Lastly, because the majority of energy efficient products and 

materials used in homes and buildings are made in the US, energy efficiency can be a persistent 

economic engine for jobs and growth. 

Respectfully, 

Jay Murdoch 

Leader, Government and Industry Affairs 

cc: David Lee Jeremy Williams Mark Lessans
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander VUGLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11173-AA

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 26, 2017)

David Charles Waterman, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Josephine W. Thomas, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bjorn Erik Brunvand, Bjorn E. Brun-vand, PA, Clearwater, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: HULL, WILSON, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

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); *see United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Alberto Montano CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17555 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 22, 2017)

*664Jillian M. Jewell, Germaine Seider, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Taylor G. Stout, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Grady Irvin, appointed counsel for Ruben Alberto Montano Castro in this direct criminal appeal, 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 Castro’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                      |  |  |  |                                                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Michael A. Baker President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Date: July 30, 2014

From: David Cole, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

To: Docket # EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2009

‐ 0734

Subject: Suggestions for New Residential Wood Heater NSPS Final Rule

On July 29, 2014, state and industry representatives, at their request, met by conference call

with EPA representatives. The meeting focused on joint state

‐ industry recommendations for

EPA to consider as the Agency continues to develop the final rule.

The state

‐ industry representatives presented five issues:

1. Transition from crib wood to cord wood testing

2. Implementation: compliance schedule, grandfathering and sell

‐ through of inventory

3. EPA oversight of lab certification

4. EPA certification process

5. General NSPS enforceability and oversight

Attending the conference call were—

NESCAUM: Lisa Rector (representing Arthur Marin, Executive Director)

WESTAR: Dan Johnson, Executive Director; Bob Lebens, Technical Coordinator

HPBA: Jack Goldman, President and CEO

EPA/OAQPS: Greg Green, Chebryll Edwards, Gil Wood, Amanda Aldridge, David Cole
#### James Robert DONALDSON, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 23121.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 12, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1966.

*159Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant urges that the failure of a state court judge to advise him of his right to counsel and his right to subpoena witnesses at his “examining trial” vitiates his conviction on a plea of guilty for robbery by assault, and entitles him to federal habeas corpus.

Within a few hours of his arrest, the appellant was taken before a Justice Court of the State of Texas for an “examining trial” to “examine into the truth of the accusation made”. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 245 (1925). He was not informed of his right to appointed counsel, nor of his right to subpoena witnesses. After indictment, the appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. Both when he pleaded guilty and when he received sentence, the appellant was represented by counsel. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a writ of habeas corpus, as did the lower court here.

The appellant alleged in his petition that “had he been informed of [his] * * * right [to subpoena witnesses], witness and evidence in his behalf would have been available at the arraignment and examining trial, there were not available at the trial in which petitioner was found guilty and sentenced * * * [sic] Since the appellant’s guilty plea precluded any trial at which such witnesses or their testimony might have been of use to the appellant, he may not now rely on the state judge’s failure to inform him of his right to present witnesses as a ground for federal habeas corpus. Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 75.

The appellant also urges that the failure of the arraigning judge to inform him of his right to counsel entitles him to federal habeas corpus. Insofar as this contention relies on prejudice to the appellant in formulation of his trial strategy, Busby v. Holman, supra, controls. The appellant does not contend that his failure to have counsel at the examining trial tainted the voluntariness of his later guilty plea. Indeed, the appellant makes no attack whatsoever on that plea, which, we note, was entered with the assistance of counsel.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the annual report of Golden Century Resources Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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 13, 2011





By:       /s/ David Lee


David Lee


President, Treasurer and Director


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4513-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4513-DR), dated April 2, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on February 16, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David Warrington, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Chad M. Gorman as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-04584 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### The People *ex rel.*The Society of the New York Hospital, Resp't, *v.*Elijah Purdy *et al.,*Assessors, App'lts.

*Wm. L. Snyder,*for resp’t; W. *Popham Platt,*for app'lts.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur

Affirming 84 N. Y. State Rep., 893.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 746 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 746

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to require humane treatment of animals 
                   by Federal Government facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2015

  Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Buchanan, and Ms. 
  Slaughter) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to require humane treatment of animals 
                   by Federal Government facilities.

    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 ``The Animal Welfare in Agricultural 
Research Endeavors Act'' or the ``AWARE Act''.

SEC. 2. ANIMAL WELFARE.

    Section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2144) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Any'' and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), any Federal 
        research facility or any other'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Any'' and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(2) Animal exhibition.--Any''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Exclusions not applicable.--For purposes of the 
        application of standards and other requirements described in 
        paragraph (1) to a Federal research facility or any other 
        department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
        having laboratory animal facilities, the exclusions contained 
        in section 2(g)(3) shall not apply.''.
                                 <all>
```
SERVED AUGUST 29, 2011 

:rp^TMENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 'i'RANSl'ORTATlON . .i^lrl'^^^yi^RT^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '• '-'^''^' ^' tn.^J lUNo 

WASHINGTON, DC .,, . ^ ^ 

2011 AUG i i A ^^UO 

IN THE MATTER OF • 

SUNSTATE PROPELLER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0780 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 20lOSO 150051) has been assigned to 

Administralivc Law Judge J. E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

'-- ^ Ron 

Chief Administrative 
FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0780 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^3 0 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael A. Hanson, Respondent's Counsel 

HANSON Law Office 

2501 North Orient Road, Suite D 

Tampa, FL 33619 

TEL: 813-626-7304 

FAX: 813-621-6901 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address; Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -