alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LAMONT HOWARD, JR., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

I. BACA, WARDEN, N.N.C.C., 

Respondent. 

No. 67342 

FILED 

MAR 1 7 2016 

TRACE K. UNDEMAN 

CLERK OF . SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial 

District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge. 

Appellant Lamont Howard, Jr., argues that the district court 

erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing on 

his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to 

evidence of a prior bad act in which Howard harassed a pregnant woman 

who was walking with her child. To prove ineffective assistance of 

counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was 

deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 

resulting prejudice such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 

100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in 

Strickland). 

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim without an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, this court 

concluded that, even if the prior bad act evidence was erroneously 

(0) 1947A aeo 

go - 0899 0 
admitted at trial, the admission was harmless in light of the other 

evidence. Howard v. State, Docket No. 59039 (Order of Affirmance, 

February 6, 2013). Thus, the district court properly found that Howard 

could not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at 

trial but for trial counsel's opening the door to this evidence. Because 

Howard's claim of ineffective assistance failed on the prejudice prong, he 

was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100 

Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that a petitioner is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when his claims are supported by 

specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, 

would entitle him to relief). Accordingly, we conclude that Howard fails to 

demonstrate that the district court erred in denying the petition without 

an evidentiary hearing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

J. 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Story Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A cep
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6983 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6983

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, as the ``Nell Patten 
                        Roquemore Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NELL PATTEN ROQUEMORE POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nell 
Patten Roquemore Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# L_2004333EN.01001401.xml

| 9.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 333/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 333/14

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 155 of 14 June 2002
  )

On page 29, first paragraph of Article 3:

for:

| ‘(d) | olive-pomace oil:

  “oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives”,
  or

  “oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace oil and oils obtained directly from olives”
  ’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

olive-pomace oil:

“oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives”,

or

“oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace oil and oils obtained directly from olives”
  ’,

read:

| ‘(d) | olive pomace oil:

  “oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives,”

  or

  “oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace oil and oils obtained directly from olives”
  ’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

olive pomace oil:

“oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives,”

or

“oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace oil and oils obtained directly from olives”
  ’.

---
**Exhibit 33.2**

REPORT ON ASSESSSMENT OF

COMPLIANCEWITH SEC REGULATION AB CRITERIA

First DataResources, Inc. through its affiliate REMITCO, LLC (jointly, the “AssertingParty”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the servicing oftransactions on the remittance payment platform relating to the opening,listing and depositing of remittance payments mailed to post office boxesserviced by the Asserting Party as of and for the 12 month period endingDecember 31, 2006, (the “ReportingPeriod) with the servicing criteria set forth in the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Section229.1122(d), except for the criteria set forth in Sections229.1122(d)(l)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv),1122(d)(4)(i)-(iii) and (v)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded arenot applicable to the servicing of the transactions as set forth in agreementsbetween Capital One Services, Inc., together with its affiliates, Capital OneBank and Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. and the Asserting Party in so far as itrelates to the opening, listing and depositing of remittance payments mailed topost office boxes serviced by the Asserting Party (the “Applicable ServicingCriteria”) for the Reporting Period.

The AssertingParty has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria by theAsserting Party for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the AssertingParty has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable ServicingCriteria for the servicing of transactions relating to the opening, listing anddepositing of remittance payments mailed to post office boxes serviced by theAsserting Party as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independentregistered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on theassessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Periodas set forth in this assertion.
| First Data Resources, Inc. |   | REMITCO LLC      |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------|
|                       |   |             |   |   |   |   |
|                       |   |             |   |   |   |   |
| By:                        |   | /s/ David Bailis |   |   | By: |   | /s/ Scott Dickey |   |
|                       |   | David Bailis     |   |   |   | Scott Dickey |
|                       |   | President        |   |   |   | President |
|                            |        |                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

February26, 2007

----
# • Studen t Univers e i::FTC:-J:;:;::^ppBW!O N
Marc h 11 , 201 0 i / \ ' - 1 ^ Th e Honorabl e RayLaHoo d Secretary Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D.C

. 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Sen/ice s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne rofAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor t o fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e newservic e fro m NewYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Lo s Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Tol<y o Intemationa l Airpor

t a t Haneda

. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe r i n reachin g a landmar k

Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e byU.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m NewYor k an d Lo s Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o f th e world' s larges t financia l an d commerc e centers
. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n ofJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , have underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi cmarket

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o NewYor k an d Lo s Angele s - bot h vita l foca l point s o f business , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai r servic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e NewYor k

an d Lo s Angele s metro area s wil l gai n significan t economi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customers an d employees

. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o make th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a reality.

. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sayye s t o America n Airline s an d its reques t fo rslot s t o fl y fro m Kennedyand Lo s Angele s t o Haneda ! Sincerely , 

# 9 J

. yenaudfCyr , Jr

. Vic e Presrdent , Airlin e Product StudentUniverse.co m

J

. Renau d Cyr , Jr

. - Vic e President, Airlin e Produc

t StudentUniverse.co

m 23 0 Thir d Ave , Firs t Floor , Waltham , M

A0235 1 Phone: 617-321-323 3 Fax : 617-321-317 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wayne Lamarr WORLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11816 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 9, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Camille M. Knight, Burleson, Pate & Gibson, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wayne Lamarr Worley, Jr. appeals his below-guidelines-range sentence of 188 months imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Worley argues that the district court erred in accepting the drug quantity calculation in the presentence report because the information in the pre-sentence report (PSR) lacked sufficient in-dicia of reliability.

Worley asserts that his argument is foreclosed by this Circuit’s precedent but seeks to preserve it for further possible review. *See United States v. Alaniz,*726 F.3d 586, 619 (6th Cir. 2013). The Government has filed a motion for a summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief.

Summary affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although a district court ordinarily may rely on the PSR if there is no rebuttal evidence, a defendant may still argue that the PSR does not have sufficient indicia of reliability because the findings are conclusional and rely on incorrect facts. *See United States v. Elwood,*999 F.2d 814, 817-18 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the reliability of a PSR is thus dependent on the facts of the particular case, summary affirmance is not an appropriate disposition.

Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, Worley’s arguments fail. The defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show that the facts contained in the PSR are inaccurate or materially untrue. *See Alaniz,*726 F.3d at 619. Worley did not rebut the detailed findings in the PSR concerning the estimate of the drug quantity attributed to him were not reliable or credible. The district court’s factual findings were plausible in light of the record as a whole and, thus, the findings were not clearly erroneous. *Id.*at 618.

Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the *391Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### David Elliott et al., Infants, by Harrison S. Elliott, Their Guardian, et al., Appellants, *v.*Teachers College, Respondent, and John J. Bennett, Jr., as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Argued March 3, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*749
      *Austin W. Scott*and *Bernard Hellring*of the New Jersey Bar, and *Emil Weitzner*for appellants.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General (Edward L. Ryan*of counsel), as successor to John J. Bennett, Jr., Defendant-Appellant, in his statutory capacity, under section 12 of Personal Property Law and section 113 of Real Property Law.

*Timothy N. Pfeiffer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis PRIETO, Jr., a.k.a. Lou, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17436 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 27, 2017)

Laura Thomas Rivero, Michelle B. Alvarez, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Jonathan E. Kob-rinski, Cristina Moreno, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Seth Michael Schlessinger, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Steven Harold Haguel, Law Offices of Steven H. Haguel, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Prieto’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See 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); *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).
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1113 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1113

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1113/2002 of 26 June 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the provisions concerning the certificate of inspection for imports from third countries under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 **

*
Official Journal L 168 , 27/06/2002 P. 0031 - 0031 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1113/2002

of 26 June 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the provisions concerning the certificate of inspection for imports from third countries under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 473/2002(2), and in particular Article 11(3)(b) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001(3) establishes a new certificate of inspection for imported products replacing the certificate established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3457/92(4) and foresees that the new certificate shall be applied from 1 July 2002 to products imported under the procedures established in Article 11(1) and 11(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

(2) However, preparing for 1 July 2002, several Member States have encountered certain technical difficulties and doubts to implement Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001. For the sake of transparency and in order to avoid confusion, these problems must be solved prior to applying the new certificate.

(3) It is therefore advisable to postpone the date from which the new certificate established in Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001 shall apply.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1788/2001 is amended as follows:

1. In Article 8, the date of "1 July 2002" is replaced by "1 November 2002".

2. In Article 9, the date of "1 July 2002" is replaced by "1 November 2002".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 June 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 75, 16.3.2002, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 243, 13.9.2001, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 350, 1.12.1992, p. 56.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1073

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Ronnie Lee Langston lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________ Submitted: August 3, 2015

Filed: September 9, 2015 [Published]

____________ Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. This court previously affirmed Ronnie Lee Langston’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Ac t, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v. Langston , 772 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Th e Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). This court again affirmed the sentence. See United States v.Langston , 2015 WL 4646854 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015) (per curiam). Granting Langston’s petition for rehearing, this court now vacates the opinion of August 6, 2015. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court vacates Langston’s sentence and remands. Langston pled guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced him as anarmed career criminal to 180 months’ imprisonment. See § 924(e)(1) (mandatory minimum of 180 months if a felon in possession of a firearm has three prior convic tions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses). At sentencing, the court found that four prior convictions were violent felonies: terrorism, going armed with inte nt, theft, and burglary. Langston did not dispute that the theft and burglary convicti ons were violent felonies. This court affirmed, holding that Langston’s going-arme d-with-intent conviction was a violent felony under the “residual clause” of the ACCA. See § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (crime is a violent felony if it “otherwise involves c onduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”).
In Johnson , the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson , 135 S. Ct. at 2556-57 (noting vagueness in criminal statutes is prohibited by due process). In light of Johnson , Langston’s goingarmed-with-intent conviction is not a qualifying violent felony. Neither, the government concedes, is Langston’s theft conviction. See United States v. Griffith , 301 F.3d 880, 885 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding theft from a person is a violent felony under the residual clause). See also United States v. Davidson , 551 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (discussing plain error review). Thus, the district court erred by sentencing Langston as an armed career criminal. The judgment is vacated and the case re manded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

______________________________ -2-
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Steve A. Smith, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019 of Duke Mountain Resources, Inc. 

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

 

Date:May 13, 2020*/s/Steve A. Smith, Jr.* 

Steve A. Smith, Jr.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05138]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS Contract Review.
    Date: April 4, 2022.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 
6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-9087, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a9ababb6a1a9a5b684a9a5ada8eaaaadaceaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3133332e39313d2e1c313d353072323534723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 7, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05138 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>