alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS W. HEALAN,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

RAUL LOPEZ, Warden, Corcoran State

Prison

 Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-56559 

D.C. No. 2:10-cv08631-JAK-PLA

MEMORANDUM 

*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 7, 2012** 

Pasadena, California

FILED

DEC 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Larry A. Burns, District Judge for the

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

 

2

Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.*** 

California state prisoner Curtis Healan appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision was not “based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), because the trial judge’s

determination that Healan’s counsel never fell asleep during trial, but functioned

appropriately and competently, was supported by the evidence presented at the

hearing, including the judge’s own observations of counsel’s trial performance. 

Cf. Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 487 (9th Cir. 2000) (trial judge was in good

position to evaluate attorney’s actual performance). Healan has not rebutted the
3

trial court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(e)(1). 

The California Court of Appeal’s decision was neither “contrary to” nor an

“unreasonable application of” Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). 

No Supreme Court case holds “that prejudice shall be presumed in circumstances”

where the attorney may be mentally impaired. Dows, 211 F.3d at 484–86. Given

the overwhelming evidence of Healan’s guilt, he has not shown that he was

prejudiced by any error he now assigns to his counsel. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro VILLENA, also known as Pata, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20619 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 9, 2017

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

Alejandro Villena, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alejandro Villena, federal prisoner # 33881-079, was convicted of conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 360 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Now, he appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2), which was grounded in Amendment 782 to the United' States Sentencing Guidelines. His motion to file a reply brief out of time is GRANTED.

This court reviews the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Section 3582(c)(2) grants discretion to a district court to modify a sentence that was based on a guidelines range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. § 3582(c)(2). In considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the court first considers whether the movant is eligible for a sentence reduction and then asks whether a reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). A “court is not required to state findings of facts and conclusion of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion.” *United States v. Cooley,*590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Villena’s guidelines range was not lowered by Amendment 782. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying his motion. *See*§ 3682(c)(2).

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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TRAVIS LEE MORGAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3342

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge.

Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender,

and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R2380 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R2380

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2380/2002 of 30 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade with third countries in products in the wine sector **

*
Official Journal L 358 , 31/12/2002 P. 0117 - 0118 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2380/2002

of 30 December 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade with third countries in products in the wine sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2585/2001(2), and in particular Article 68(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 22(2)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1574/2002(4), lays down that the certificate and analysis report provided for in Article 20 of that Regulation need not be presented for wine and grape juice in containers of not more than five litres, originating in and coming from third countries whose annual imports into the Community are less than 1000 hectolitres. The import of small quantities is planned from Indonesia and Thailand. Those two countries should therefore be added to the list given in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 883/2001.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 is replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 30 December 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 128, 10.5.2001, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 235, 3.9.2002, p. 10.

ANNEX

"ANNEX VI

List of countries referred to in Article 22

- Iran

- Lebanon

- People's Republic of China

- Taiwan

- India

- Bolivia

- Republic of San Marino

- Thailand

- Indonesia."
# L_2004291DE.01001802.xml

| 14.9.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 291/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 291/18

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2003/41/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 3. Juni 2003 über die Tätigkeiten und die Beaufsichtigung von Einrichtungen der betrieblichen Altersversorgung

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 235 vom 23. September 2003
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 235 vom 23. September 2003

Seite 20, Artikel 20 Absatz 6:

anstatt:

„im Einklang mit den sozial- und arbeitsrechtlichen Vorschriften des Herkunftsmitgliedstaats im Bereich der betrieblichen Altersversorgung“

muss es heißen:

„im Einklang mit den sozial- und arbeitsrechtlichen Vorschriften des Tätigkeitsmitgliedstaats im Bereich der betrieblichen Altersversorgung“.

---
#### JIANRUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73016

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 13, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed November 02, 2017

Jisheng Li, Attorney, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner

OIL, Manuel Palau, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of *736Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jianrui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on the basis of inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and supporting documentation regarding the date his wife was forcibly sterilized, and the total amount he was fined after his children’s unauthorized births. Lin contends the BIA erred by failing to consider his arguments that the IJ did not adequately address his explanations for those inconsistencies. We agree. *See Sagaydak v. Gonzales,*405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); *see also Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An .adverse credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for. a discrepancy or inconsistency.”) (superseded by statute on other grounds).

We grant the petition for review and remand Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims on an open record for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *Soto-Olarte v. Holder,*555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this disposition, we do not address Lin’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 950

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary

of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on submerged land

of the outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a coastal State that

has declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or production activity in adjacent State waters, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs.

FEINSTEIN, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. ROBB, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct

the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing

activity on submerged land of the outer Continental Shelf

that is adjacent to a coastal State that has declared

a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or

production activity in adjacent State waters, 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,
2

•S 950 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coastal States Protec3 tion Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEAS5 ING.

6 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

7 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the

8 following:

9 ‘‘(p) STATE MORATORIA.—When there is in effect

10 with respect to lands beneath navigable waters of a coastal

11 State a moratorium on oil, gas, or other mineral explo12 ration, development, or production activities established by

13 statute or by order of the Governor, the Secretary shall

14 not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or pro15 duction of minerals on submerged lands of the outer Con16 tinental Shelf that are seaward of or adjacent to those

17 lands.’’.

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2390** 

THOMAS L. SWITZER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. TOWN OF STANLEY; OFFICER BROWN; SERGEANT DEAN , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv - 00128

- sgw )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju dge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas L. Switzer seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without pre judice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against the Town of Stanley . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 292 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 199 3) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) ( internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Switzer would be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s order. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Switzer’s complaint without prejudice is not an ap pelable final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Rrafman KOCI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70998

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*610Submitted November 7, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 16, 2017

Liana Harutunyan, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Liana Harutunyan, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Tidal Attorney, OIL, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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: REINHARDT, GILMAN,** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Rrafman Koci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Koci’s third motion to reopen. Ordinarily, “a party may file only one motion to reopen deportation or exclusion proceedings ... and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered....” 8'C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A statutory exception is available, however, if the petitioner presents evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” *Id.*§ 1003,2(c)(3)(ii).

Koci’s third motion to reopen is both untimely and successive. Moreover, Koci has failed to demonstrate a material change of conditions in Albania that would entitle him to the statutory exception. The publication of our 2008 memorandum disposition on the Internet is not material to Koci’s application for relief because Koci has not demonstrated that the publication increased his risk of harm in Albania. Nor are the news articles attached to Koci’s motion material. Although they demonstrate that tensions between democrats and socialists continue, they do not establish a material change in Albania. Even more importantly, however, Koci has not presented evidence that negates the Immigration Judge’s initial adverse credibility finding, which we affirmed in a prior appeal. *Koci v. Mukasey,*270 Fed.Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 911 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 911

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
SEA MISTRESS (United States official number 696806).

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 911

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel SEA MISTRESS.
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0871 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0871

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 871/2003 of 20 May 2003 permanently authorising a new additive manganomanganic oxide in feedingstuffs (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 125 , 21/05/2003 P. 0003 - 0004 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 871/2003

of 20 May 2003

permanently authorising a new additive manganomanganic oxide in feedingstuffs

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002(2), and in particular Articles 3 and 9(d) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Directive 70/524/EEC provides that new additives may be authorised following the review of an application made in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive.

(2) An application for authorisation was submitted for the additive "manganomanganic oxide" as a source of manganese, which belongs to the group of trace elements referred to in part II of Annex C of Directive 70/524/EEC.

(3) The Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition (SCAN) has delivered an opinion on the use of this additive in feedingstuffs on 6 February 2002, which concludes that manganomanganic oxide does not present a risk to animal health, human health or the environment.

(4) The assessment of the request for authorisation submitted in respect of manganomanganic oxide shows that this additive, referred to in Article 2(aaaa), meets the requirements laid down in Article 3a of Directive 70/524/EEC, under the conditions set out in the Annex to this Regulation. This additive should therefore be authorised for an unlimited period.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Manganomanganic oxide belonging to the group "trace elements", listed in the Annex to this Regulation, is authorised for use as an additive in feedingstuffs under the conditions laid down in the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 20 May 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 265, 3.10.2002, p. 1.

ANNEX

Trace elements

>TABLE>