alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Edmund BARNARD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6654, No. 17-6655

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 9, 2017

*315Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Uzo Enyinnaya Asonye, Christopher John Catizone, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion for recusal and on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. With respect to the district court’s order denying relief on Barnard’s motion for recusal, we have re'viewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. *See United States v. Stone,*866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the order in No. 17-6654 for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Barnard,*No. 1:15-cr-00060-LMB-1, 2017 WL 1393055 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2017).

Turning to Barnard’s appeal of the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2255 motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have-independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 17-6655, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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 decisiqnal process.

*No. 17-6654—AFFIRMED*

*No. 17-6655—DISMISSED*
• Student Universe 

i::FTC:-J:;:;::^ppBW!ON 

March 11, 2010 i /\ ' - 1^ 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Sen/ices Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport 

and Los Angeles International Airport to Tol<yo Intemational Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December 

in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to 

service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York 

and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the 

world's largest financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. 

American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angeles - both vital focal points of 

business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing unsurpassed air 

service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from 

these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we 

need your help to make the JFK & LAX/Haneda connection a reality.. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly 

from Kennedyand Los Angeles to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

9 

J. yenaudfCyr, Jr. 

Vice Presrdent, Airline Product 

StudentUniverse.com 

J. Renaud Cyr, Jr. - Vice President, Airline Product StudentUniverse.com 

230 Third Ave, First Floor, Waltham, MA 02351 Phone: 617-321-3233 Fax: 617-321-3171
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garland S. Tucker, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Company.





/s/ GARLAND S. TUCKER, IIIGarland S. Tucker, IIIChief Executive OfficerFebruary 26, 2014
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Joe HARRIS, also known as Mohamad Aziz, also known as Ezekiel Maza, Appellant

No. 17-3072

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: October 12, 2017

Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joe Harris, Pro Se

BEFORE: Henderson, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant, which the court construes as a memorandum of law and facts. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36(d). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court entered on September 7, 2017, denying appellant’s motion to extend his travel permit, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court’s order constitutes an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (reviewing district court’s management of supervised release for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to modify the terms of supervised release.”). Insofar as appellant seeks to challenge the validity of his conviction or his terms of supervised release, those issues are outside the scope of the order on appeal.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7065 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7065

To include water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of 
the Corps of Engineers in planning, designing, constructing, modifying, 
 operating, and maintaining water resources development projects, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2024

Mrs. Napolitano (for herself and Mr. LaMalfa) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To include water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of 
the Corps of Engineers in planning, designing, constructing, modifying, 
 operating, and maintaining water resources development projects, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Priority for Water Supply and 
Conservation Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MISSION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, shall include water supply and water conservation 
as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers in planning, designing, 
constructing, modifying, operating, and maintaining water resources 
development projects.
    (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section affects--
            (1) existing Corps of Engineers' authorities, including its 
        authorities with respect to navigation, flood control, and 
        environmental protection and restoration;
            (2) pending Corps of Engineers permit applications or 
        pending lawsuits involving permits or water resources projects;
            (3) the application of public interest review procedures 
        for Corps of Engineers permits; or
            (4) any authority of a State to manage, use, or allocate 
        the water resources of that State.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge TURRUBIARTES-GONZALEZ, also known as Rolando De La Cruz, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40328 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 25, 2017

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

Jorge Turrubiartes-Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Turrubiartes-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charg*812ing him with illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) *&*(b). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in applying the 12-level “crime of violence” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior conviction of burglary of a habitation in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a).

We review *de novo*the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines, including its determination that a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 2L1.2. *United States v. Diaz-Corado,*648 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2011). In *United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176-77 (5th Cir. 2014), we held that § 30.02(a) is a divisible statute and that a conviction under § 30.02(a)(1) qualifies as a generic burglary. We recently revisited the holding in *Conde-Castaneda*in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 2016) *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In *Uribe,*we decided that § 30.02(a) “is elements-based, it is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies.” *Id.*at 671. The state court documents clearly show that Turrubiartes-Gonzalez was convicted under subsection (a)(1) of the Texas burglary statute. Accordingly, the district court properly applied the 12-level ‘‘crime of violence” enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *812published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Edgardo HERRERA, a.k.a. Harald Herrera, a.k.a. Harold Herrera, a.k.a. Herald Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse B. Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse Edgar Herrera, a.k.a. Jessie Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50162

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesse Edgardo Herrera, Pro Se

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 **

Jesse Edgardo Herrera appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Herrera’s plea agreement provided that, if he received the benefit of then-pending Amendment 782 at sentencing, he waived any right to file a later motion for a sentence reduction under that amendment. Contrary to Herrera’s contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court granted him the benefit of Amendment 782 by way of a two-level downward variance. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Herrera had waived the right to pursue a further reduction.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  8 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 Euro Group of Companies, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge and upon a review of
the Report that:

     (1) The Report of the Company filled today pursuant to Section 12(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ( the "Exchange Act"), fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
     Act; 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: November 19, 2007                    /s/  Andrew Eracleous
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Andrew Eracleous
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50957

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ARIAS-MACEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No.5:09-CR-183-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jose Arias-Macedo appeals his sentence. The government argues that the

appeal should be dismissed as untimely.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 1, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-50957 Document: 00511222276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2010
No. 09-50957

The notice of appeal was due within 10 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2008). In a criminal case, a district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for an additional 30

days on a finding of good cause or excusable neglect. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). In

criminal cases, a notice of appeal filed within this additional 30-day period is

customarily treated as a motion under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). United States v.

Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984). In Arias-Macedo’s case, however, the

additional period ended in August 2009, well before Arias-Macedo filed his notice

of appeal in October 2009. Therefore, the notice of appeal is untimely.

In a criminal case, the untimely filing of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional and can be waived. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89

(5th Cir. 2007). Because, however, the government has challenged the timeliness of the notice of appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v.

Gray, 332 F. App’x 192, 193 (5th Cir. 2009).

2

Case: 09-50957 Document: 00511222276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2010
#### LOUISIANA CLEANING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ollie S. TYLER, Individually & in her official capacity on behalf of City of Shreveport; David Duncan, Individually & in his official capacity; Brian Crawford, Individually & in his official capacity; Dale Sibley; City of Shreveport, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-31192 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 13, 2017

*373Glenn Charles McGovern, Esq., Law Office of Glenn C. McGovern, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Edwin H. Byrd, III, Pettiette, Armand, Dunkelman, Woodley, Byrd *&*Cromwell, L.L.P., Shreveport, LA, for Defendants-Appellees

. Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In light of the City of Shreveport’s recent amendment of Shreveport Municipal Ordinance § 42-277, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. We REMAND this case to the district court for the Western District of Louisiana for further proceedings.

*

 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.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0393 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0393

**2003/393/EC: Commission Decision of 22 May 2003 amending Decision 2000/728/EC establishing the application and annual fees of the Community eco-label (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 1780) **

*
Official Journal L 135 , 03/06/2003 P. 0031 - 0031 *

Commission Decision

of 22 May 2003

amending Decision 2000/728/EC establishing the application and annual fees of the Community eco-label

(notified under document number C(2003) 1780)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/393/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme(1), and in particular Article 12 thereof and Annex V thereto,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with the working plan established by Commission Decision 2002/18/EC(2) the fee structure for the Community eco-label should offer an appropriate incentive to encourage the use of labels under both the Community scheme and other eco-label award schemes.

(2) Commission Decision 2000/728/EC of 10 November 2000 establishing the application and annual fees of the Community eco-label(3) should therefore be amended to allow reductions for products that have also been awarded another eco-label that complies with the general requirements of ISO 14024.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee instituted by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 2 of Decision 2000/728/EC, the following paragraph 8a is inserted:

"8a. Competent bodies may grant a reduction of up to 30 % where the product in question has also been awarded another eco-label that complies with the general requirements of ISO 14024."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States and to the Community eco-label competent bodies.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2003.

For the Commission

Margot Wallström

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 7, 11.1.2002, p. 28.

(3) OJ L 293, 22.11.2000, p. 18.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Duane RABIEH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6317

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Leslie M. Maye, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Okla*626homa, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert Spencer Jackson, Robert S. Jackson, Attorney at Law, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellant

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGEMENT *

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

Michael Rabieh pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, and sentenced Mr. Rabieh to 151 months’ imprisonment. Several years later, Mr. Rabieh filed a pro se motion for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague, and *United States v. Madrid,*805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015), which applied *Johnson*to the residual clause for the career-offender sentencing enhancement, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).

The district court denied the § 2255 motion because the plea agreement contained a collateral-attack waiver. Subsequently, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether enforcement of the waiver would constitute a miscarriage of justice under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004). However, after the certificate was granted, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). *Bedeles*held that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the residual clause of § 4B 1.2(a)(2), are not susceptible to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. Thus, we need not address whether the plea waiver precludes this collateral attack because Mr. Rabieh’s § 2255 motion lacks merit in light of *Bedeles.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule '32.1.