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

No. 16-50502

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sandra Hourani, Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Darcy Paschall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the six-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervision imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Paschall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to her nonfrivolous argument in favor of leniency. We review for plain error, see *United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Paschall’s argument and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence selected. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Paschall also contends that the 51-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s willingness to terminate supervision in two years if Paschall remains violation-free. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Paschall’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Art Technology Group,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert D. Burke, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, 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.

                                                 /s/ EDWARD TERINO
                                 -----------------------------------------------

                                                   Edward Terino
                                    Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer
                                  (principal financial and accounting officer)

Date: March 16, 2005
Exhibit 32
----------

CERTIFICATION 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 adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced ID
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 12, 2004

/s/ Barry I. Bennett
----------------------------------------
Barry I. Bennett, Chief Executive 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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; BRAIN Initiative: Novel Tools to Probe Cells and Circuits in the Brain (R01).                    

*Date:*                         March 30, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Erin E. Gray, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard NSC 6152B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8152,                         *erin.gray@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 12716)    
Dated: March 1, 2022.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04678 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 99.10




VIA EDGAR




TO:          United States Securities and Exchange Commission




Re:           Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company")


Annual Report on Form 40-F


Consent of Expert




This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2012, and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report”), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Company’s Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual Information Form”), and the Company’s Management Discussion and Analysis for the financial years ended December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2012 (the “MD&A”).




I, Antonio Umpire (CUI), DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:




·
the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company’s Esaase gold project, Ghana, contained in the Annual Information Form and the MD&A; and




·
the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.






Dated March 28, 2013




/s/ Antonio Umpire


— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —


Antonio Umpire (CUI)


Mineral Resources Manager International


Minxcon (Pty) Ltd.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7058 

To establish a Border Security Reserve Fund to be used by border States 

and the U.S. Border Patrol to invest in border security, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To establish a Border Security Reserve Fund to be used 

by border States and the U.S. Border Patrol to invest 

in border security, 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 ‘‘Border Security Re5 serve Fund Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BORDER SECURITY RESERVE FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is established in the Treas8 ury of the United States a fund to be known as the ‘‘Bor9 der Security Reserve Fund’’ (in this section referred to 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7058 IH

1 as the ‘‘fund’’) to be used by border States and the U.S. 

2 Border Patrol to invest in border security. 

3 (b) DEPOSITS.—There shall be deposited into the 

4 fund amounts associated with unlawful narcotics con5 fiscated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

6 (c) COOPERATION.—The Commissioner of U.S. Cus7 toms and Border Protection shall work with appropriate 

8 officials of the Treasury of the United States and the 

9 United States Secret Service to ensure amounts deposited 

10 pursuant to subsection (b) are not counterfeit. 

11 (d) PROHIBITION.—Amounts deposited pursuant to 

12 subsection (b) may not be used by sanctuary cities or for 

13 the overflow housing of migrants. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT JAMES THOMAS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2019, the Application for Extraordinary 

Relief Under King’s Bench Jurisdiction is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The
undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ JEFFREY E. HARTMANNJeffrey E. HartmannExecutive Vice President, Finance andChief Financial OfficerFebruary 11, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0392 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0392

**2001/392/EC: Commission Decision of 4 May 2001 amending for the fourth 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(2001) 1172) **

*
Official Journal L 138 , 22/05/2001 P. 0022 - 0030 *

Commission Decision

of 4 May 2001

amending for the fourth 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(2001) 1172)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/392/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 95/176/EC(2), and in particular Article 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/169/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Canada and Switzerland officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of respectively two and one additional equine semen collection centres.

(3) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the non-member 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 Veterinary Committee,

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, 4 May 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

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

(2) OJ L 117, 24.5.1995, p. 23.

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

(4) OJ L 60, 1.3.2001, p. 62.

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

>TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04771]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: March 7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
March 1, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 130 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2022-43, CP2022-49.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-04771 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 35.1**[CHASE LOGO]****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**RE: Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-S3: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement by and amongChase Mortgage Finance Co as Depositor, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, JPMorganChase Bank, NA as Custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Paying Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A. as Servicer, (the “Agreement”)The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, asservicer (the “Servicer”) pursuant to the Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-S3 (The“Agreement”), does hereby certify that:          (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ending December 31,2006 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;and          (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.Date: 02/28/2007      JPMorgan Chase Bank,
#### Robert L. CADE, Appellant, v. George S. CARPENTER, Judge, Superior Court, Baldwin County, Milledgeville, Georgia, Appellee.

No. 23399.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1966.

George D. Lawrence, Eatonton, Ga., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We need not reach the question of whether the action of the District Judge constituted error. Construed as liberally as the rules permit and require, Appellant’s petition cannot be interpreted as a petition for writ of habeas corpus because it is not directed against the person holding Appellant in custody, but rather against the District Judge. As so construed, Appellant fails to state a ground on which relief can be granted, since the actions of the District Judge are protected by the bar of judicial immunity. Carmack v. Gibson, 5 Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 862.

The judgment is affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0197 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0197

**2001/197/EC: Council Decision of 26 February 2001 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and training **

*
Official Journal L 071 , 13/03/2001 P. 0015 - 0015 *

Council Decision

of 26 February 2001

concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and training

(2001/197/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 149 and 150 in conjunction with Article 300(3), first subparagraph thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1) By its Decision of 22 May 2000 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate Agreements for cooperation in higher education and vocational training between the European Community, Canada and the United States of America.

(2) The Community and Canada expect to obtain mutual benefit from such cooperation, which must, on the Community's side, be complementary to the bilateral programmes between the Member States and Canada and provide a European added value.

(3) The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and training should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and training is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The delegation of the European Community to the Joint Committee referred to in Article 6 of the Agreement shall consist of a representative from the Commission assisted by a representative from each Member State.

Article 3

The President of the Council shall carry out the notification provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.

For the Council

The President

A. Lindh
Exhibit 99.2

          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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary M. Ebele, Principal Financial Officer of CAI Equipment
Leasing V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.


By:      /s/Mary M. Ebele                                    Dated: May 16, 2005
         ----------------
         Mary M. Ebele
Title:   Principal Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Leontae CARLYLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-12784 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 24, 2017)

Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Daniel George, James A. Muench, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Yvette Clair Gray, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Stephen John Langs, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Carlyle appeals his 77-month sentence, imposed within the advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

Briefly stated, the appeal presents three issues:

> 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Carlyle’s motion to continue his sentencing hear*986ing until after the effective date of some amended Sentencing Guidelines;

> 2. Whether U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague so that the district court erred by using Carlyle’s prior convictions for “crimes of violence” to increase his base offense level; and

> 3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the § 3553(a) factors and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We see no reversible error.

First, because the district court had the inherent authority to manage its docket and Carlyle had no right to be sentenced under a future Sentencing Guidelines amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Carlyle’s motion to continue sentencing until a date after the amendment’s effective date. Second, because *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), forecloses Carlyle’s argument that *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), rendered U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague, the district court did not err by increasing his base offense level due to prior “crimes of violence.” Third, because the district court addressed the § 3553(a) factors and Carlyle has not identified a specific error in the court’s reasoning; the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

AFFIRMED.