alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Bailey, Respondent, *v.*Augustus Buell et al., Appellants.

(Argued *June*11, 1872;

decided November 12, 1872.)

This action was brought against defendants as assessors of the town of East Bloomfield, Ontario county, to recover damages for an alleged illegal assessment.

Plaintiff was assessed by defendants in 1867 the sum of $188.66. He was not in fact a resident of the town. Having failed to pay the tax to the collector, the same was returned by him, and in August, 1868, the supervisor of the. town instituted supplementary proceedings under chap. 361 of the Laws of 1867, and on the 19th of September, 1868, an order was granted by the county judge of Ontario county, directing plaintiff to pay the tax or an execution would be issued against him for the amount.

On being served with a copy of said order, plaintiff paid the amount and costs to the county treasurer through his attorney. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff and exceptions ordered to be heard at General Term. »The General Term directed judgment on the verdict. *Held*(Grover, J., dissenting), that the order of the county judge was not authorized by the statute, and was void; that the payment was not compulsory or made under legal duress, but was voluntary, and plaintiff therefore could not recover.

*H. O. Chesebro*for the appellants.

*E. A. Wash*for the respondent.

*663Allen, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial.

All concur except Gtkover, J., dissenting, and Peokham, J., not voting.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan COATS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6143

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

*796Bryan Coats, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Coats seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 appealability 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 Coats has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coats’ motion for 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 decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**EXHIBIT 99.15**

VIA EDGAR 

**TO:**

**United States Securities and Exchange Commission**

**Re:**

**Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company")**

**Annual Report on Form 40-F**

**Consent of Expert**

This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto (the “**Annual Report**”), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Company’s Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2013 (the “**Annual Information Form**”).

I, SJP Coetzee, **DO HEREBY CONSENT**, to:

·

the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company’s Esaase Gold Project, Ghana, contained in the Annual Information Form, and

·

the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7089 

To authorize the Diplomatic Security Services of the Department of State 

to investigate allegations of violations of conduct constituting offenses 

under chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. JAMES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Diplomatic Security Services of the Department of State to investigate allegations of violations of 

conduct constituting offenses under chapter 77 of title 

18, United States Code, 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 ‘‘Global Anti-Human 

5 Trafficking Enhancement Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7089 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING PROTECTION AND PROSECUTION EF2 FORTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

3 OF STATE. 

4 (a) INVESTIGATION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of 

5 State is authorized to investigate transnational violations 

6 of chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, in which 

7 part of the offense conduct occurred outside the United 

8 States or involved 1 or more foreign nationals. 

9 (b) AUTHORITIES.—Section 37(a) of the State De10 partment Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 

11 2709(a)) is amended— 

12 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

13 inserting a semicolon; 

14 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub15 paragraph (D); and 

16 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol17 lowing new subparagraph: 

18 ‘‘(C) transnational violations of chapter 77 

19 of title 18, United States Code, in which any 

20 part of the offense conduct occurred outside the 

21 United States or involved one or more foreign 

22 nationals; or’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40937

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIZABETH SALAZAR-GALVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-1168-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elizabeth Salazar-Galvan (Salazar) pleaded guilty to one count of illegal

reentry after deportation following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b). She appeals her within-guidelines sentence of 37 months

imprisonment, arguing that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because

the district court failed to provide adequate reasons to explain its choice of

sentence. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 27, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40937

2

As Salazar failed to articulate her specific procedural objection at

sentencing, this court reviews for plain error. See United States v. MondragonSantiago, ___ F.3d ___, No. 07-41099, 2009 WL 782894, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 26,

2009). To demonstrate plain error, Salazar must show a forfeited error that is

clear or obvious and affects her substantial rights. See id. If these conditions

are met, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error if it “seriously

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Salazar’s sentence would

have been different if the court had provided more explanation for its choice of

sentence. Salazar has thus failed to demonstrate error affecting her substantial

rights. See id. at *7.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1120 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1120

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1120/2002 of 26 June 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products **

*
Official Journal L 171 , 29/06/2002 P. 0001 - 0006 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1120/2002

of 26 June 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous common customs tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96(1).

(2) A number of products should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex to the said Regulation because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous common customs tariff duties or because the description needs to be altered in the light of technical developments.

(3) Products whose description needs to be altered should be regarded as new products.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be amended accordingly.

(5) Having regard to the economic importance of this Regulation, it is necessary to invoke the ground of urgency provided for in point I(3) of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities on the role of national parliaments in the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby amended as follows:

1. the products set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall be inserted;

2. the products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall be deleted.

Article 2

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 2002.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 2002.

For the Council

The President

C. Villalobos

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2499/2001 (OJ L 340, 21.12.2001, p. 1).

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANEXO II - /BILAG II - /ANHANG II - /ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ ΙΙ - /ANNEX II - /ANNEXE II - /ALLEGATO II - /BIJLAGE II - /ANEXO II - /LIITE II - /BILAGA II

>TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00255-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.D., E.D., 

AND M.D., CHILDREN

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

FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 325-487586-10

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On August 11, 2015, September 18, 2015, and October 19, 2015, we 

notified appellant in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we 

would dismiss this appeal unless the $195 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(c). In our September 18, 2015 order and our October 19, 2015 order, we 

also informed appellant that if he did not pay or make arrangements to pay for 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

preparation of the appellate record by October 29, 2015, we would dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 37.3(b), 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $195 filing fee, see Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b), 

and on October 30, 2015, the trial court clerk informed this court that appellant 

had not paid for the clerk’s record. Therefore, because appellant has failed to 

comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas 

Supreme Court’s order of August 16, 2013,

2 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 12, 2015

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Aug. 16, 2013) (listing fees in courts of 

appeals).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Severiano SOLIS-FACUNDO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41557 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Severiano Solis-Facundo, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Severiano Solis-Facundo 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). Solis-Facundo 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.
#### Angel Nicolas Colin ENZANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73848

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Henry Cruz, Attorney, Rios & Cruz, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: BEA, PAEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Nicolas Colin Enzana, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction un*882der 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Colin Enzana’s request for judicial notice is denied. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Colin Enzana’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073; *Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture were speculative). We reject Colin Enzana’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis. Thus, his CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 16, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (``IEEE'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, 16 new standards have been initiated and 10 existing 
standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be 
found at: https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/dec2021.html. The 
following pre-standards activities associated with IEEE Industry 
Connections Activities were launched or renewed: https://standards.ieee.org/about/bog/smdc/december2021.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 14, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67081).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05196 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### Karen VILLA Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1670

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 25, 2017

Filed: September 28, 2017

Karen Villa, Pro Se

Ann M. Bildtsen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Christopher Carillo, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Thomas W. Crawley, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region V, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*887Karen Villa appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we find no basis, and Villa offers none, for overturning the district court’s determination that substantial evidence supported the denial. See Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 950-51 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo district court’s decision to affirm denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income; by statute, Commissioner’s findings as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
#### IN RE: DOCTER OPTICS, SE, Appellant

2017-1126

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 17, 2017

*1036Deborah Pollack-Milgate, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellant. Also represented by Leah Lewis Siegel; Richard B. Lazarus, Washington, DC.

Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Kakoli Caprihan, Mary L. Kelly, Thomas W. Krause.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
**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 GCA III Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M.
      Membrado, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                Michael M. MembradoMichael
                M. Membrado
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              August
                24, 2007
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2




                            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 Quarterly Report of SCB Computer Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Boling, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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 result of operations of the
Company.



December 13, 2002



By:  /s/  Michael J. Boling
   ---------------------------
       Michael J. Boling
      Executive Vice President,
  Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer