alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James VILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-4063

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 1, 2017

Filed: November 14, 2017

James Villa, Pro Se

Thomas J. Kangior, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Respondent-Appellee

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 2013, James Villa pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and he was sentenced as a career offender to 164 months in prison. In 2015, Villa filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming that his sentence violated his rights under the Due Process Clause because he no longer qualified as a career offender after *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). *Johnson*held that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Villa argued by extension that an identically-worded provision of the Sentencing Guidelines applied in his case, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2013), was also unconstitutionally vague. The district court1 denied relief, and Villa appeals.

*535Assuming without deciding that Villa’s claim was not waived in his plea agreement, Villa is not entitled to relief under § 2255 because the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 799

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude certain bank products

from the definition of a deposit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 12 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude

certain bank products from the definition of a deposit.

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 ‘‘Bank Insurance Fund

5 and Depositor Protection Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF DEPOSIT.

7 Section 3(l)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act

8 (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)(5)) is amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at

10 the end;
2

•S 799 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraph:

5 ‘‘(C) any liability of an insured depository

6 institution that arises under an annuity con7 tract, the income on which is tax deferred

8 under section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code

9 of 1986.’’.

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to

12 any liability of an insured depository institution that

13 arises under an annuity contract issued on or after Octo14 ber 6, 1994.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13799-13803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons or 
property that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals 
and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and 
additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available 
on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On March 3, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests 
in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are 
blocked and also identified the following property as blocked under the 
relevant sanctions authority listed below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 13800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR22.001


[[Page 13801]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR22.002


[[Page 13802]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR22.003


[[Page 13803]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR22.004


    Dated: March 3, 2022.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2022-05094 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINDSPRING ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         388,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,321
<INVENTORY>                                        134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,936
<PP&E>                                          89,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 723,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,376
<BONDS>                                        179,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           634
<OTHER-SE>                                     489,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   723,956
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,292
<CGS>                                           50,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,694
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,385)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17354 and #17355; NEBRASKA Disaster Number NE-00094]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4641-DR), dated 02/23/2022. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         12/15/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 02/23/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/25/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/23/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/23/2022, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Adams, Buffalo, Burt, Cass, Cuming, Fillmore, Gage, Hamilton, Harlan, Jefferson, Johnson, Kearney, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Otoe, Pawnee, Platte, Polk, Richardson, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Thayer, Washington, Webster. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17354 B and for economic injury is 17355 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Barbara Carson, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2022-04356 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 664 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 664

          To allow travel between the United States and Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

  Mr. Sanford (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Chaffetz, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
   Cramer, and Mr. Rangel) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To allow travel between the United States and Cuba.

    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 ``Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. TRAVEL TO CUBA.

    On or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and subject to 
section 3--
            (1) the President may not prohibit or otherwise regulate, 
        directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States 
        citizens or legal residents, or any of the transactions 
        incident to such travel, including banking transactions; and
            (2) any regulation in effect on such date of enactment that 
        prohibits or otherwise regulates travel to or from Cuba by 
        United States citizens or legal residents, or any of the 
        transactions incident to such travel, including banking 
        transactions, shall cease to have any force or effect.

SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS.

    Section 2 shall not apply in a case in which the United States is 
at war with Cuba, armed hostilities between the two countries are in 
progress, or there is imminent danger to the public health or the 
physical safety of United States travelers.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

    This Act applies to actions taken by the President before the date 
of the enactment of this Act that are in effect on such date of 
enactment, and to actions taken on or after such date.

SEC. 5. INAPPLICABILITY.

    The provisions of this Act apply notwithstanding section 102(h) of 
the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 
U.S.C. 6032(h)) and section 910(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and 
Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7209(b)).
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose PRADO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40108 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

John Richard Berry, 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

*826Jose Prado-Mendoza, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Prado-Mendoza pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging him with illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court applied the 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014) based on Prado-Mendoza’s prior conviction for burglary of a habitation in violation of Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a). For the first time on appeal, Prado-Mendoza argues that in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), the district court plainly erred by treating his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation as a crime of violence for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) enhancement. The Government argues that Prado-Mendoza waived this issue because counsel agreed that Prado-Mendoza’s prior offense warranted the 16-level enhancement, and that, as a waived error, Prado-Mendoza’s argument is entirely unreviewable. We pretermit the issue whether Prado-Mendoza has waived the argument he raises, as his argument fails under the less stringent plain error standard of review. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

To establish plain error, Prado-Mendoza must demonstrate a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *See id.*

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 this holding in light of *Mathis*and decided that § 30.02(a) is “elements-based” and divisible, and the modified categorical approach applies. *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). Prado-Mendoza’s state court documents clearly show that he was convicted under subsection (a)(1) of the Texas burglary statute. Accordingly, the district court properly applied the 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), and Prado-Mendoza fails to show error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2006-QA9 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

   In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided  to  me  by  the  following   unaffiliated   parties:  PHH  Mortgage
   Corporation, Provident Funding Associates, LP and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
   Americas.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ---------------------
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09202]

[[Page 22116]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63, Sec. Sec.  
63.1 to 63.599, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 478, in Sec.  
63.343, paragraph (c)(5)(ii) is correctly revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions. [Corrected]

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an 
affected source shall monitor the surface tension of the electroplating 
or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a surface 
tension greater than the value established during the performance test, 
or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 
dynes/cm, as measured by a tensiometer, if the owner or operator is 
using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 
section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The surface 
tension shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-09202 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
```
#### Premalal RANASINGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 15-15247 15-15780

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

*469Premalal Ranasinghe, Pro Se

Patrick M. Kennell, Kaufman Dolowich *&*Voluck, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Great West Casualty Company

James Ray Broening, Esquire, Attorney, Alicyn Marie Freeman, Broening. Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Joseph J. Popolizio, Phillip H. Stanfield

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM *

In these consolidated appeals, Premalal Ranasinghe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,*637 F.3d 1047, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ranasinghe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Ranasinghe and defendant Great West entered into a binding contract. *See Schade v. Diethrich,*158 Ariz. 1, 760 P.2d 1050, 1058 (1988) (reasonable certainty of contractual terms is an important factor in determining whether the parties intended to make a binding offer and acceptance); *Heywood v. Ziol,*91 Ariz. 309, 372 P.2d 200, 203 (1962) (“It is elementary that before there can be a binding contract there must be mutual consent of the parties to the terms thereof.”),

• The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ranasinghe’s motion for relief from judgment because Rana-singhe failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment based on fraud).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to defendant Great West after considering the relevant factors because its conclusions were supported by the evidence. *See*Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (permitting an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of a contract); *Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner,*143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1985) (setting forth standard of review and listing the factors for determining whether to award fees).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**CL** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3 - 0 041 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. BENEDICT DALE FREDERICKS ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 3 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2024

04/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0041