alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Gonzalez ARIAS, a.k.a. Cesar Castro Favela, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10021

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

*581Jill M. Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Richard J. Bender, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jason Hitt, Justin Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

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 **

Jose Gonzalez Arias appeals from the district court’s amended judgment and challenges the 120-month concurrent sentences imposed on remand following his jury-trial convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics, and unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), and 846, and guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Arias’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Arias the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Katherine B. ROBINSON; Dana B. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; Proctor Financial, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1796

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

*213Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B, Williams, Appellants Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s February 2017 order dismissing without prejudice their civil complaint against Defendants after Appellants failed to comply with the district court’s previous order directing that the complaint be supplemented. However, Appellants previously appealed the district court’s dismissal order to this court, and we dismissed that appeal. *See Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Md.,*691 Fed.Appx. 782 (4th Cir. 2017). Because we have previously dismissed an appeal of this order, and since Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed beyond the 30-day appeal period, *see*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that in civil cases in which the United States is a not party, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal), we dismiss this appeal as duplicative and untimely.* 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 in the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 To the extent that the notice of appeal could be construed as attempting to challenge the district court’s February 21, 2017, return pleading order, the notice of appeal is untimely as to this order as well.
# EUR-Lex - 32001C0627(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001C0627(01)

**Joint declaration relating to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43) **

*
Official Journal L 173 , 27/06/2001 P. 0005 - 0005 *

Joint declaration relating to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43)

1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree that the agencies and similar bodies created by the legislator should have rules on access to their documents which conform to those of this Regulation. To this effect, the European Parliament and the Council welcome the Commission's intention to propose, as soon as possible, amendments to the acts establishing the existing agencies and bodies and to include provisions in future proposals concerning the establishment of such agencies and bodies. They undertake to adopt the necessary acts rapidly.

2. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission call on the institutions and bodies not covered by paragraph 1 to adopt internal rules on public access to documents which take account of the principles and limits in this Regulation.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Deshawn STEVENSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3726

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2017

Filed: May 1, 2017

Tiffany Gulley Becker, Kenneth Tihen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s *595Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mario Deshawn Stevenson, Pro Se

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mario Stevenson directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the district court should have varied downward even further. Stevenson has not filed a pro se brief.

' We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfnvolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
#### John Randall FUTCH, Petitioner-Appellant v. Cheron NASH, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-51222 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 8, 2017

John Randall Futch, Pro Se

Joseph Cuauhtemoc Rodriguez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

*386Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM: *

John Randall Futch, federal prisoner # 08700-021, appeals the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges a disciplinary conviction for violating “Code 299, Conduct Which Disrupts the Security or Orderly Running of the Institution, Most Like Code 206, Making Sexual Proposals or Threats to Another Person.” Futch argues that the district court abused its discretion in in finding that there was some evidence to support his disciplinary conviction and by denying his motion for discovery.

While Futch contends that he did not receive all of the due process protections to which he was entitled under *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), he fails to challenge the district court’s determination that he was provided notice of the charges and notice of the hearing, that he was informed of his rights, and that he was provided the disciplinary hearing officer’s written report. Also, Futch does not include argument challenging the district court’s finding that he received all of his *Wolff*due process rights during the disciplinary proceeding, Futch has therefore abandoned these issues. *See United States v. Scroggins,*599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

According to Futch, the district court erred by determining that there was some evidence to support a finding of guilt, as evidence was falsified and, if discovery of “the ‘first drop note’” had been allowed, he would have been able to refute the evidence that was presented. As the record demonstrates that there was some evidence to support the finding of guilt, Futch’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. *See Teague v. Quarterman,*482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007); *Reeves v. Pettcox,*19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the record shows that the drop note in question was irrelevant to the evidence submitted during the disciplinary proceeding and that there was no evidence to substantiate Futch’s claim that a prison official falsified her statement.

Finally, the district court’s denial of discovery was not an abuse of discretion. *See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist.,*233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000); *Hernandez v. Garrison,*916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Mrs. Annie Laurie REWIS, as temporary administratrix of the Estate of Joann Rewis, Deceaséd, and Mrs. Annie Laurie Rewis and Joseph Sidney Rewis, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 73-2340.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1975.

(Opinion November 18, 1974, 5 Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 1202)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

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

PER CURIAM:

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby

Denied.

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge

(dissenting):

For the reasons outlined by my dissent to the panel opinion, I respectfully register my emphatic dissent to the majority’s denial of the government’s petition for rehearing.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 204 SSM 21 The People &c., Appellant, v. Tyson Sydoriak, Respondent.

Submitted by Christopher Blira-Koessler, for appellant. Submitted by Alexis A. Ascher, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court, for reasons stated in People v Nealon (___ NY3d ___, 2015 NY Slip Op ___ [decided
- 1 -
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
  The
undersigned, Eugene Seymour, MD, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
NanoViricides, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  (1)
              the
      annual report on Form 10-K of NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended
      June 30, 2009 (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
      NanoViricides, Inc.
 
 Dated:
October 13, 2009
  /s/
      Eugene SeymourEugene
      SeymourChief
      Executive and Interim Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer)
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to NanoViricides, Inc. and will be retained by
NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
# TALL
September 8, 2015 H o n. Christopher A. Prine , C lerk of Co urt FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 301 Fannin Houston , Te xas 77002 

### Via £-Filing

RE: No
. 01-15-00326-CV ; Don Abbott Holmes , et al. vs. Jetall C ompani es , Inc. Dear Mr. Prine: I am hereby appearing a s appellat e counsel in the above-referenced appeal. Please d e signate me as counsel for Appellee , J e tall Companies , Inc. , copy me on all filin gs and notic es from th e Court , and add the fo llo wi n g inform a tion to yo ur record s :

Lee Keller King Texa s Bar N o. 00702016 2500 W est Loop South , Suite 255 Hou s ton , Texa s 77 027 Tel. (713) 789-76 5 4 Fax (71 3 ) 789- 333 1 lee . k @ j e ta ll companies.com By emailed cop y of thi s le tte r and b y electronic serv ic e, I am no tify in g counsel of record for Appellants , Don Abbott Holme s, Gayle E i s er Holme s, and the Community Property Estate of Don Abbott , Holme s & Gay le Eiser Holm es, of thi s designation. Thank you for yo ur a ss is ta nc e. Plea se feel free to call th e undersi g n e d if you ha ve any que s tions.

25 00 West Loop South , Suite 255 Houston , TX 77027 713.789.7654 Fax : 713.789.33 3 1

D i s c l ai mer: In the e vent o f a m o n etary di s put e where Ten ant owes an amo un t to Land lor d
. th ere i s n o a ccord nor sa t isfac tio n unt il Landlord i s pa id in fu l l. U ntil L a nd l ord i s paid in full , Land lo rd may b ring su it 10 s ecure the re mainin g fund s owe d by Tcna n l. Fro m time to time , Landl o rd may gran t a o n e- ti me acco mm od ati o n . Thi

s acco mmoda ti o n doc s no t waive o r cure any p as t, c urr en t, o r futu r e Te nant l i abi liti es , ob li gat io n

s, or matt ers of default. ou t s id e th e acco mmodation addre ssed and a uth orize d b y La ndl ord , at Land l ord 's so l e and abso lu te di scre ti o n . ACCEPTED 01-15-00326-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/8/2015 3:28:57 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKHon

. ChristopherA. Prine, Clerk of C ourt First Court of Appeals Septembe r 8, 2015
Very trul y yo ur s ,

# ~~

cc: Mart in J

. Siege l Texas State Bar No. 18 342 1 25 L AW OFFI C ES O F M A RT I J. SI EGE L , P
. C. Bank of America Ce nter 700 Loui s iana Street , S uite 2300 Houston , TX 77002 Tel.: (7 1 3) 226

- 8566 Ma1ti n @ s iege lfirm.co m Geoffre y Berg Tex as Bar No
. 00793330 B E RG FELDM AN J O H N SO N B E LL , LLP 4203 M o ntro se B lv d. , S uite 1 5 0 H o u s ton , Texas 77006 Te leph o n e: (713) 526-0 2 00 G b erg @ bfjbl aw . co m
#### John Johnson, Respondent, *v.*Frederic De Peyster, Appellant.

(Argued June 17, 1872;

decided November 12, 1872.)

This was an action upon a building contract. The principal question below was as to whether plaintiff, the contractor, had substantially performed his contract. The referee found this issue in his favor upon conflicting evidence. He also found that defendant sustained damage from insufficient and defective work to the amount of $150, which he allowed as recoupment. *Held,*that the question whether the defects were so trivial and insignificant as to justify the finding that the work was substantially performed was a question of fact, and that the amount allowed was not such as to show that the finding of substantial performance was unsustained by evidence ; also *held*that evidence bf usage, as to measurements in the locality where the building was built, was competent, and became part of the contract. If one of the parties was ignorant of the • usage it was not binding, but that was for him to prove.

*John JW. Whiting*for the appellant.

*Samuel Hand*for the respondent.

'Grover, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur, except Peokham, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 796

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the removal of such horses,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1 (legislative day, MAY 11), 1995

Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. ASHCROFT) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark

National Scenic Riverways, Missouri, and prohibit the

removal of such horses, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ozark Wild Horses

5 Protection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FREE-ROAMING HORSES.

7 The first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro8 vide for the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic

9 Riverways in the State of Missouri, and for other pur-
2

•S 796 IS

1 poses’’, approved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460m), is

2 amended in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘protection and

3 preservation of free-roaming horses,’’ after ‘‘wildlife,’’.

4 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF HORSES.

5 Section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for

6 the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways

7 in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes’’, ap8 proved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460m–4), is amended

9 by adding at the end the following new subsection:

10 ‘‘(c) The Secretary may not remove, or allow or assist

11 in the removal of, any free-roaming horse from Federal

12 land within the boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic

13 Riverways, except in the case of a medical emergency or

14 natural disaster.’’.

Æ
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-QS17 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:  HSBC  Mortgage
   Corporation (USA),  National City Mortgage Co., SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. and
   Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title:    Managing Director
# Jornal Oficial C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1010
  doi:10.3000/19771010.C_2014.034.por |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 34 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 57.o ano5 de Fevreiro de 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1010

doi:10.3000/19771010.C_2014.034.por

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 34

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

57.o ano5 de Fevreiro de 2014

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Parlamento Europeu |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Decisão | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Parlamento Europeu

2014/C 034/01

Decisão

1

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Parlamento Europeu

| 5.2.2014 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 34/1

---

DECISÃO

2014/C 34/01

O SECRETÁRIO-GERAL DO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU,

Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CEE, Euratom, CECA) n.o 259/68 do Conselho (1), alterado pelo Regulamento (CE, Euratom) do Conselho n.o 723/2004 (2) com a última redação que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (UE, Euratom) n.o 1080/2010 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 24 de novembro de 2010, que altera o Estatuto dos Funcionários das Comunidades Europeias e o regime aplicável aos outros agentes destas Comunidades (3) e, nomeadamente, o artigo 30.o do Estatuto,

Tendo em conta a decisão da Mesa, de 3 de maio de 2004, relativa à delegação de poderes da Entidade Competente para Proceder a Nomeações (ECPN) e da Entidade Habilitada para Celebrar Contratos de Admissão (EHCA), modificada pela Mesa em 4 de maio de 2009,

Tendo em conta a data de expiração, em 31 de dezembro de 2013, das listas de reserva do Parlamento Europeu a seguir indicadas:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

Considerando que a comissão paritária foi convidada a emitir o seu parecer no prazo de 15 dias úteis, nos termos do artigo 10.o-A do Estatuto,

DECIDE:

Artigo 1.o

O prazo de validade das listas de reserva:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S e PE/121/S,

é prorrogado até 31 de dezembro de 2014.

Artigo 2.o

O prazo de validade das listas de reserva:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08 e PE/119/S,

não é prorrogado.

Luxemburgo, em 20 de dezembro de 2013.

Klaus WELLE

Secretário-Geral

---

(1)  JO L 56 de 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

(2)  JO L 124 de 27.4.2004, p.1.

2

(3)  JO L 311 de 26.11.2010, p. 1.

3

---