alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11343 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSENDO PEDRAZA-CORDOVA, a/k/a Rosendo Morales-Cordova, Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-240-ALL

--------------------- June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Rosendo Pedraza-Cordova (“Cordova”) has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cordova has moved this court to dismiss court-appointed counsel and to appoint a new attorney for appeal. Cordova’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. Our review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous point for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw isO R D E R No. 98-11343 - 2 - GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
#### Corry D. SEARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY INS. CORP.; Greg Evans, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1400

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

*744Corry D. Searles, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corry D. Searles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Searles’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Searles has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Terry G.
Roussel and Sharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his or her knowledge, the Annual Report of
Cornerstone Growth & Income REIT, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
twelve month period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Cornerstone Growth & Income REIT, Inc.





/s/
      TERRY G. ROUSSELDate:
      March 17, 2009
                  Terry
      G. RousselChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)/s/
      SHARON C. KAISERDate:
      March 17, 2009
                  Sharon
      C. KaiserChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting
Officer)
# L_2006286DE.01002801.xml

| 17.10.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 286/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 286/28

---

Berichtigung der Entscheidung 2002/741/EG der Kommission vom 4. September 2002 zur Festlegung überarbeiteter Umweltkriterien für die Vergabe des EG-Umweltzeichens für Kopierpapier und für grafisches Papier und zur Änderung der Entscheidung 1999/554/EG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 237 vom 5. September 2002
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 237 vom 5. September 2002

Seite 12, Anhang, Ziffer „3. Fasern — nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft“ erhält folgende Fassung:

„3.   Fasern — nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft

Fasern können Holzfasern oder Recycling-Fasern aus Altpapier oder andere Zellulosefasern sein. Fasern aus dem Fertigungsausschuss von Papierfabriken gelten nicht als Recycling-Fasern.

Mindestens 10 % der aus Wäldern bezogenen frischen Holzfasern müssen aus Wäldern stammen, die nach den Grundsätzen einer nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft und unter Anwendung von Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung einer nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft bewirtschaftet werden und entsprechend zertifiziert wurden.

Die übrigen aus Wäldern bezogenen frischen Holzfasern müssen aus Wäldern stammen, die nach den Grundsätzen einer nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft und unter Anwendung von Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung einer nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft bewirtschaftet werden.

Für sämtliche frischen Fasern ist die Herkunft anzugeben.

In Europa müssen die genannten Grundsätze und Maßnahmen zumindest den bei der Ministerkonferenz zum Schutz der Wälder in Europa in Lissabon (2.—4. Juni 1998) angenommenen gesamteuropäischen Indikatoren und Leitlinien für die Praxis der nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft entsprechen. Außerhalb Europas gelten die auf der UNCED verabschiedeten forstwirtschaftlichen Grundsätze (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) sowie gegebenenfalls die im Rahmen entsprechender internationaler oder regionaler Initiativen (ITTO, Montrealer Prozess, Tarapoto-Prozess, UNEP/FAO-Initiative für die Trockenregionen Afrikas) festgelegten Kriterien und Leitlinien für eine nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft.

Beurteilung und Prüfung: Der Antragsteller gibt Typen, Mengen und Herkunft der in der Zellstoff- und Papierproduktion verwendeten Fasern an. Die Herkunft der frischen Fasern wird gegebenenfalls so hinreichend genau angegeben, dass durch Überprüfungen sichergestellt werden kann, dass die frischen Fasern aus nachhaltig bewirtschafteten Wäldern stammen. Wenn frische Fasern aus Wäldern verwendet werden, legt der Antragsteller geeignete Nachweise zusammen mit ergänzenden Unterlagen vor, aus denen hervorgeht, dass das Zertifizierungssystem die genannten Grundsätze und Maßnahmen der nachhaltigen Forstwirtschaft ordnungsgemäß bewertet. Für die frischen Holzfasern, die nicht aus zertifizierten, nachhaltig bewirtschafteten Wäldern stammen, legt der Antragsteller geeignete Erklärungen, Konzessionen, Verhaltenskodizes oder Erklärungen vor, die belegen, dass die genannten Anforderungen erfüllt werden.“

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Antonio GRIEGO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41101 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 11, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Antonio Griego, Pro Se

*776Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Antonio Griego has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Grie-go has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

> -

gQ4)ll-E-164 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 204 of 264 
T 

P.2 

JUL-lU-ao rKl /:i o 

07/01/88 11:45 

UKHNt UUK ItU 

©10190410234 

0?1& 

fHA NU. ddoc'in 

PBS RTP NC 

r.ud. 

©002/007 

A 94 52 1

' -- £-t CH 

From: 

Date: 

Con?»ct: 

Coutact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

June 29,1998 

Mr. Mark Smith 

Company: Crane Cor Tec, Inc. 

Tclerihune Number; (740)636-3231 

F>«Nuinl>cr: (740)636-3252 

Confatt Summary: 

Mr. Mark Smith was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update information provided 

in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by Crane Cor Tec, Inc. 

for their facility located in Washington Court House, Ohio. In response to my questions Mr. Smith 

indicated the following: 

The filled polyester resin used hy the facility during its fabrication process contains 

approximately 33% HAP (by weight as applied with filler). This "as applied" HAP content is the 

maximum HAP content allowed hy the facility's permit. The HAP content of the polyester resin 

prior to the addition of filler i_-W> HAP (by weight as supplied). The only HAP initially present 

-"Tffiepolyester resin is styrene. Occasionally, small amounts of HAP are added to die resin but 

these quantities are not expected to significantly change Ihe weight percent of HAP present in either 

the "as applied" or "as supplied" resin. The facility uses die vacuum bagging process on all products 

produced using this filled polyester resin. The polyester resin used during this fabrication process 

does not contain a vapor suppressant 

The facility uses several pigmented production gel coats which have HAP contentB ranging 

from approximately 35% HAP (by weight) to approximately 42% HAP (by weight). The main HAP 

present in the gel coals is styrene although some of the gel coats also contain methyl memacrylato. 

The facility does not use any clear production or pigmented tooling gel coats. No additional HAP 

is added to the gel coats during the fabrication process with The exception of small amounts of HAP 

that may (or may not) be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts added to the gel uuats. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE 
T P.3 

JUL-10-98 FRI 7H 8 CRANE COR TEC FAX NO. 33521Y1 P.U1 

P.O. Box 280 Washington Court House. Oh 43160 

740^3e-3231 V 

74f>636-32K> F CRANE CORTEC 

Fax 

To: Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental From: Mark P. Smith 

Fax: (919)941-0234 

Phone: (919)941-0333 

Ro; Contact Report - review 

Pages: 2 (ind. Cover) 

Date: July 10,1998 

CC: 

X Urg&nt • For Review 0 Please Comment D Please Reply O Pleas* Recycle. 

Thank you for your recent fax, including the contact report and the information on proposed MACT 

standards and emissions studies. 1 have reviewed the contact summary, which appears accurate (I 

made one small clarification). Attached is a signed copy acknowledging my review. 

If you have any questions, feel free to call. 

Sincerely, 

Mark P, Smith 

-2-
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0052 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0052

**2002/52/EC: Council Decision of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits **

*
Official Journal L 028 , 30/01/2002 P. 0112 - 0112 *

Council Decision

of 21 January 2002

on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits

(2002/52/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Council decided by Decision 1999/753/EC(1), that the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part(2), would enter into force provisionally on 1 January 2000.

(2) An Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") has been negotiated. This Agreement was initialled on 30 November 2001 and should be approved.

(3) In order to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Agreement, the Commission should be allowed to make the necessary technical adjustments in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89(3) of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits together with the attached Annex, Protocol and Declarations are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The texts referred to in the first subparagraph are attached hereto.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.

Article 3

For the purpose of applying Articles 5(8) and 16(2) of the Agreement the Commission is hereby authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, to conclude the instruments required to amend the Agreement.

Article 4

The Commission shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee set up under Article 17 of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 21 January 2002.

For the Council

The President

M. Arias Cañete

(1) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3378/94 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 366, 31.12.1994, p. 1).
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 739

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel SISU, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1, 1995

Mr. PACKWOOD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SISU, 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. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of

5 title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer6 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica7 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

8 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation
2

•S 739 IS

1 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

2 coastwise trade for the vessel SISU, United States official

3 number 293648.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1477 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1477

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1477/2001 of 18 July 2001 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the buying-in period for the 2000/01 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 195 , 19/07/2001 P. 0031 - 0031 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1477/2001

of 18 July 2001

derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the buying-in period for the 2000/01 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000(2), and in particular Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The conditions governing the taking-over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/98(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 610/2001(4). Article 6(1) of that Regulation provides that delivery must take place by the end of the second month following receipt of the offer and in any case not later than 31 August of the current marketing year.

(2) During the 2000/01 marketing year, the intervention agencies encountered difficulties in setting up a satisfactory system for the storage, inspection and reception of the goods. As a result of those difficulties, the acceptance of offers submitted and the taking-over of deliveries have fallen behind schedule. Those difficulties justify an extension of the period for delivery to the intervention agency for the 2000/01 marketing year.

(3) In view of the situation facing the intervention agencies, this Regulation must enter into force immediately.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 708/98, delivery in respect of the 2000/01 marketing year must take place by no later than the end of the third month following that of receipt of the offer and in any case not later than 31 August 2001.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 18 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 98, 31.3.1998, p. 21.

(4) OJ L 90, 30.3.2001, p. 17.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrice Lumumba FORD, a.k.a. Larry Jackson, a.k.a. Lumumba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30173

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Pamala R. Holsinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lisa C. Hay, Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Patrice Lumumba Ford appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ford argues that remand is warranted for the district court to consider whether to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) place Ford in a community corrections facility, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B), and whether to invite the BOP to file a motion to reduce his term of imprisonment in light of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” pursuant to 18 U.S.C.' § 3582(c)(l)(A)(i). Though pro se motions are to be liberally construed, *see Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), not even the most liberal construction reveals these arguments in Ford’s pro se motion for a sentence reduction in the district court. Accordingly, we decline to consider them. *See United States v. Pimentel-Flores,*339 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Issues not presented to the district court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal.” (internal citations omitted)). Furthermore, the district court properly determined, and Ford does not dispute, that Ford is not entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), *Pepper v. United States,*562 U.S. 476, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011), or *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Ford’s motion for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN C. DEAN, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. DORA SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents - Appellees. No. 08-16094 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01437-SRB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 10, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Stephen Dean appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

# FILED
MAR 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 We review de novo the district court’s denial of the petition, Gonzalez v. Brown , 585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. We decline to decide whether a failu re to exhaust or a procedural bar precludes Dean from obtaining federal habeas relief on his prosecutorial vindictiveness claim and instead deny his petition on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Lambrix v. Singletary , 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997); Holley v. Yarborough , 568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2009). Dean has presented no “direct evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts that warrant an appearance of such,” nor has he offered any evidence “indicating a realistic or reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness.” Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer , 485 F.3d 432, 441–42 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the record shows that the prosecutor made the plea offer’s expirati on date clear over a week before Dean requested new counsel. This dispel s any inference that the prosecution impermissibly declined to extend the pl ea deal in order to punish Dean for exercising his constitutional right to conf lict-free counsel. Because Dean’s claim clearly fails on the merits, we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas relief. AFFIRMED.
#### Michael COUSIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Homeland Security; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees, and Jeh Charles Johnson, in his capacity of Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection Agency); Troy Miller; Donald Conroy; Denis Grenier; Robert Maimbourg; Christopher Smith; Richard C. Blanks, MD; PAUL G. Prenier, MD, Defendants.

No. 17-1150

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Michael Cousin, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Maria Konkoly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr-ecedent in this circuit.

*781PER CURIAM:

Michael Cousin appeals from the district court’s judgment in Defendants’ favor on Cousin’s civil claims against Defendants, including Cousin’s disability discrimination claim brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 7961 (West 2008 *&*Supp. 2016). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Cousin v. United States,*No. 1:16-cv-00365-LMB-JFA, 230 F.Supp.3d 475, 2017 WL 388825 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2017). 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*