alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Michael YOUNG, Appellant

No. 16-1728

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 11, 2017

(Filed: December 4, 2017)

Paul G. Shapiro, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maranna J. Meehan, Esq., Maria A. Pe-draza, Esq., Brett G. Sweitzer, Esq., Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION *

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael Young appeals his judgment of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for his participation in the armed robbery of a Philadelphia convenience store. We will affirm.

I1

In May 2015, Young was simultaneously convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. *95§ 1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In this appeal, Young claims his Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).

In *United States v. Robinson,*we recently held that a Hobbs Act robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) when the convictions are contemporaneous. *See*844 F.3d 137, 143-44 (3d Cir. 2016). This is so because, in those circumstances, the jury necessarily finds that the defendant used a firearm while committing Hobbs Act robbery. *Id.*at 144.

Just like Robinson, Young was found guilty of violating both the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). Because these charges were tried simultaneously before one jury, our inquiry “is not ‘is Hobbs Act robbery a crime of violence?’ but rather ‘is Hobbs Act robbery *committed while [using or*carrying] *a firearm*a crime of violence?’ ” *Id.*We held in *Robinson*that “[t]he answer to this question must be yes.” *Id.*The fact that Young used a firearm instead of brandishing it (as Robinson did) does nothing to change this analysis.2 Accordingly, the District Court committed no error—plain or otherwise—in classifying Young’s Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence. For that reason, we will affirm Young’s judgment of conviction.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Young raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Robinson,*844 F.3d 137, 140 (3d Cir. 2016).

2

. While the defendant in *Robinson*was convicted of brandishing a firearm under § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii), the reasoning of that case extends to a § 924(c)(l)(A)(i) conviction where a jury finds that the defendant used or carried a gun. *See*844 F.3d at 143-44.
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

From: Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the May 11, 2010 EPA site visit to an ExxonMobil drill rig in 

Carthage, Texas

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this site visit was to examine an active drill rig in the East Texas basin 

and discuss opportunities for air emissions with the operators. 

II. LOCATION & DATE

The drill rig was located in the town of Carthage, Texas, Panola County. The site visit 

took place on May 11, 2010. 

III. ATTENDEES

API

Matt Todd

Cathe Kalisz

BP

Jeffrey A. Adams, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ExxonMobil

Tom Monahan, Senior Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/OAQPS)

Alex MacPherson, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group

Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Rachel Agnew, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Measurement Policy Group

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Phil Norwood

Robert Vogt

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and 

pending approval by the facility, a non-confidential report has not been issued.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6682 

To prohibit funding for the Government of Ukraine for the nationalization 

of strategic assets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. MILLS (for himself and Mr. HERN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit funding for the Government of Ukraine for the 

nationalization of strategic assets. 

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 ‘‘Prohibiting National5 ization of American Companies and Investments Act of 

6 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6682 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS BY THE GOVERN2 MENT OF UKRAINE FOR THE NATIONALIZA3 TION OF UNITED STATES ASSETS. 

4 No amounts appropriated or otherwise made avail5 able by a law enacted before, on, or after the date of the 

6 enactment of this Act, may be used by the Government 

7 of Ukraine for the nationalization, expropriation, forced 

8 liquidation, seizure, or imposition of any restrictions on 

9 shareholders rights to execute governance over, assets or 

10 property in Ukraine that is owned directly or indirectly 

11 by United States investors, including shareholder interests 

12 in any publicly traded company. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Debra BASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1431

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Decided: October 13, 2017

Mark T.- Williams, WILLIAMS, MORRISON, LIGHT AND MOREAU, Dan-ville, Virginia, for Appellant. Cathleen Kai-lani Memmer, Victor S. Skaff, III, GLENN ROBINSON & CATHEY PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

*762Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Debra Bass appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment -in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in her personal injury action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment.” *Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts,*780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” *Id.*at 568 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. R, 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to ... the nonmoving party.” *Id.*at 565 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving party must rely ,on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” *Dash v. Mayweather,*731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bass v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,*No. 4:16-cv-00033-JLK-RSB, 2017 WL 943964 (W.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2017).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
III

Calendar No. 179

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 22

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should

participate in Expo ’98 in Lisbon, Portugal.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 28, (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Mr. PELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

AUGUST 10 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States

should participate in Expo ’98 in Lisbon, Portugal.

Whereas there was international concern expressed at the Rio

Conference of 1992 about conservation of the seas;

Whereas 1998 has been declared the ‘‘International Year of

the Ocean’’ by the United Nations in an effort to alert

the world to the need for improving the physical and cultural assets offered by the world’s oceans;

Whereas the theme of Expo ’98 is ‘‘The Oceans, a Heritage

for the Future’’;
2

•SCON 22 RS

Whereas Expo ’98 has a fundamental aim of alerting political, economic, and public opinion to the growing importance of the world’s oceans;

Whereas Portugal has established a vast network of relationships through ocean exploration;

Whereas Portugal’s history is rich with examples of the courage and exploits of Portuguese explorers;

Whereas Portugal and the United States have a relationship

based on mutual respect, and a sharing of interests and

ideals, particularly the deeply held commitment to democratic values;

Whereas today over 2,000,000 Americans can trace their ancestry to Portugal; and

Whereas the United States and Portugal agreed in the 1995

Agreement on Cooperation and Defense that in 1998 the

2 countries would consider and develop appropriate

means of commemorating the upcoming quincentennial

anniversary of the historic voyage of discovery by Vasco

da Gama: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the United States should fully partici3 pate in Expo ’98 in Lisbon, Portugal, and encourage the

4 private sector to support this worthwhile undertaking.

Calendar No. 179

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 22

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Unitbon, Portugal. ed States should participate in Expo ’98 in LisAUGUST 10 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1412 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1412

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1412/2003 of 7 August 2003 suspending Regulation (EC) No 934/2003 opening an invitation to tender for the refund on common wheat exports to certain third countries **

*
Official Journal L 201 , 08/08/2003 P. 0014 - 0014 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1412/2003

of 7 August 2003

suspending Regulation (EC) No 934/2003 opening an invitation to tender for the refund on common wheat exports to certain third countries

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the markets in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1501/95(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(4), lays down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 covering the grant of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance in the sector.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 934/2003(5) opens an invitation to tender for the refund on common wheat exports to certain third countries.

(3) For economic reasons, that invitation to tender should be suspended.

(4) The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the period set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The tendering procedure provided for in Regulation (EC) No 934/2003 is hereby suspended.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 7 August 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 194, 23.7.2002, p. 26.

(5) OJ L 133, 29.5.2003, p. 42.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8545
ERIC D. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1277-R) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric D. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Virginia Parole Bd. , No. CA-95-1277-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          90,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,323,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,584
<PP&E>                                       4,049,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,852,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,507,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,204
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,342,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,852,510
<SALES>                                      1,308,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,262,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (144,474)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



           CERTIFICATION OF PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the  accompanying Annual  Report on  Form  10-K/A of ecoTECH
Energy Group,  Inc., a Nevada  corporation  (the "Company") for  the  year ended
December 31, 2011, I, Rolf A. Eugster,  Chief Financial  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:

     a)   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   The  information  contained  in the  report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition of the Company.



/s/ Rolf A. Eugster
------------------------------------------
Rolf A. Eugster
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

August 22, 2012
Exhibit 10.e


Independent Auditors' Consent


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Prime Prestadora de Servicos
S/C Ltda. on Form 20-F filed on June 28, 2002 (File No. 333-8128-03), which is
incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on
August 24, 2001 (Registration No. 333-13852-03), of our report dated June 3,
2002.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Belo Horizonte, Brazil, June 28, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6216
JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-6222
JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEONARD LOWE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-44-CT-BR, CA-96-46-5- F) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 19962 Before ERVIN and Motz, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing these 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) actions as frivolous. Appellantclaimed that his convictions violated due process and equal protection principles and that he was denied a speedy trial by an impartial tribunal. He sought damages. Appellant's claims are notcognizable under § 1983 because he has not shown that the challenged convictions have been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 USLW 4594 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188).We accordingly affirm the district court's decisions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.3 AFFIRMED
Dated:  March 29, 2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/E. Todd Whittemore Title:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, 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  GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-AR6 (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; and5.  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.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Assurant Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as ServicerGreenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as ServicerLandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Custodian
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

             CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Six Months Ended Six Months Ended
                                               June 30, 2001    June 30, 2000
                                              ---------------- ----------------
<S>                                           <C>              <C>
Net (loss) income............................       $ (6)           $   3
Add:
  Interest expense...........................        105              111
  Income tax (benefit) expense and other
   taxes on (loss) income....................         (3)               2
                                                    ----            -----
    Earnings as defined......................       $ 96            $ 116
                                                    ====            =====
Interest expense.............................       $105            $ 111
                                                    ----            -----
    Fixed charges as defined.................       $105            $ 111
                                                    ====            =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...........       .91x            1.05x
                                                    ====            =====
</TABLE>

   For the period ended June 30, 2001, there was a $9 million deficiency in
the coverage of earnings as defined, to fixed charges as defined.