alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Andre JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4507

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS *&*WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and-TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Andre Jackson appeals the 71-month sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). -He asserts that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Because Jackson does not argue that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances,” *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [ (2012) ] factors.” *Id.*

tjackson- contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, arguing that the district court erroneously relied on two circumstances — namely, the presence of firearms during the commission of the crime and his criminal history — both to determine the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and as a basis for Jackson’s particular sentence. This contention fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded Jackson’s within-Guidelines sentence. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of a 71-month sentence.

*265Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J. R. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER, D.J. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLEMENTE HERNANDEZ

- HERNANDEZ

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201500011

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 30 September 2014

. **Military Judge:** LtCol E.A. Harvey, USMC

. **Convening Authority:** Commanding Officer, Headquarters and

Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine

Corps Base, Camp P endleton, CA

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** LtCol P.D. Sanchez,

USMC

. **For Appellant:** Maj Jason L. Morris, USMCR.

**For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

**1 9**  **March 2015**

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**---------------------------------------------------**

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 887 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 887

  To prohibit false statements to Congress, to clarify congressional 
    authority to obtain truthful testimony, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 6 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

   Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Inouye) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit false statements to Congress, to clarify congressional 
    authority to obtain truthful testimony, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investigations Into Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING FALSE STATEMENTS PROHIBITION.

    Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``any department or agency of the United States'' and 
inserting ``the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the 
United States, or any department, agency, committee, subcommittee, or 
office thereof, except a court when performing an adjudicative 
function,''.

SEC. 3. OBSTRUCTING CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.

    Section 1515 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
            (1) redesignating paragraph ``(b)'' as paragraph ``(c)''; 
        and
            (2) inserting a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    ``(b) As used in section 1505 of this title, the term `corruptly' 
includes acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing 
another, including by making false or misleading statements or 
withholding, concealing, altering or destroying documents.''.

SEC. 4. RESISTING COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE SUBPOENA.

    Section 1365(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the 
second sentence by striking ``his official capacity'' and inserting 
``his or her official capacity if the head of the department or agency 
employing the officer or employee, with the approval of the Attorney 
General, has directed the officer or employee to not comply with the 
subpoena or order and has provided the issuer of the subpoena or order 
with a written explanation of the reasons for the refusal to comply''.

SEC. 5. COMPELLING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY IN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.

    Section 6005 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or ancillary to'' 
        after ``any proceeding before''; and
            (2) in subsection (b) (1) and (2), by inserting ``or 
        ancillary to'' after ``a proceeding before'' each place it 
        appears.
                                 <all>
```
#### OLWEN M. FALKENSTEIN *v.*MICHAEL FALKENSTEIN

(AC 20143)

Schaller, Spear and Daly, Js.

Argued May 9

officially released June 5, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgments are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, Solomon Nordine, Chief Financial Officer of Border
Management, 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-KSB of Border Management, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: March 29,2007

/s/ Solomon Nordine
------------------
Solomon Nordine
Chief Financial Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

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 Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0229 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0229

**2004/229/EC: Commission Decision of 5 March 2004 on the list of establishments in Latvia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2004) 662) **

*
Official Journal L 070 , 09/03/2004 P. 0039 - 0040 *

Commission Decision

of 5 March 2004

on the list of establishments in Latvia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community

(notified under document number C(2004) 662)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/229/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine, and caprine animals, and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries,(1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Article 4(1) and Article 18(1)(a) and (b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Establishments in third countries may only be authorised to export fresh meat to the Community if they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC.

(2) Following a Community mission, it appears that the animal health situation in Latvia compares favourably with that in the Member States, particularly as regards disease transmission through meat, and that the operation of controls over the production of fresh meat is satisfactory.

(3) For the purpose of Article 4(3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, Latvia has forwarded details of the establishments that should be authorised to export fresh meat to the Community.

(4) The establishments put forward by Latvia meet all the requirements laid down in Directive 72/462/EC in order to be designated as slaughterhouses and approved cutting plants from which imports into the European Union may be permitted in accordance with Article 18 of the Directive.

(5) A Community inspection has shown that the hygiene standards of those establishments are satisfactory and that they may therefore be included on the first list of establishments, to be drawn up in accordance with Directive 72/462/EEC, from which imports of fresh meat may be authorised.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The establishments in Latvia as listed in the Annex are hereby approved for the purposes of exporting fresh meat to the Community pursuant to the conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC, including points (a) and (b) of Article 18(1) thereof.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 12 March 2004.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 March 2004.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36.

ANNEX

Country: Latvia

>TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001005335
<NAME>                          Smith Barney Principal PLUS Futures Fund L.P. II

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                      5,276,933
<SECURITIES>                                               12,084,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 888,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           18,250,006
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             18,250,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1,412,828
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 16,837,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               18,250,006
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             (635,075)
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               88,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (723,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (723,390)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (47.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo GONZALEZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41189 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 1, 2017

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

Arturo Gonzalez-Perez, Pro Se

*297Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Arturo Gonzalez-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental 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). Gonzalez-Perez has filed a response. The motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez-Perez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo CARRILLO, Jr., a.k.a. Pablo Carillo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10535

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*534Submitted November-15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Allison C. Jaros, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Saul M. Huerta, Attorney, The Huerta Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CANBY, TROTT and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo Carrillo, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments, specify the statutory sentencing factors it relied upon, and explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Carrillo’s arguments and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its determination that the statutory maximum sentence was warranted. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Carrillo’s argument, there is no indication in the record that the court imposed the sentence to punish Carrillo for his new offense. *See United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may not impose revocation sentence to punish criminal conduct underlying the revocation).

Carrillo also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Carrillo’s history of smuggling illegal aliens, failure to be deterred by prior prison terms, and poor performance while on supervised release. *See id.; Simtob,*485 F.3d at 1062-63.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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. Con. Res. 29 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 29

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Senate wishes to mark the 3,000th anniversary of King David's 
        establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel;
Whereas Jerusalem, the City of David, has been the focal point of Jewish life;
Whereas Jerusalem, the City of Peace, has held a unique place and exerted a 
        unique influence on the moral development of Western Civilization; and
Whereas no other city on Earth is today the capital of the same country, 
        inhabited by the same people, speaking the same language, and 
        worshipping the same God as it was 3,000 years ago: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect is directed to make the necessary arrangements for a 
date in October to be mutually agreed upon by the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate, after 
consultation with the Minority Leaders of the two houses, for the use 
of the Rotunda for a celebration of the founding of the city of 
Jerusalem.

            Passed the Senate September 29 (legislative day, September 
      25), 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 29

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Providing for marking the celebration of Jerusalem on the occasion of 
                        its 3,000th anniversary
```
#### Ricardo FLORES-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72918

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017*

Filed November 21, 2017

Ricardo Flores-Vasquez, Pro Se

Kathryn McKinney, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Flores-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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.

The agency found Flores-Vasquez established past persecution, but his presumption of future persecution was rebutted with evidence that Flores-Vasquez could safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid harm. Substantial evidence supports this finding. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); *Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported where the record showed petitioner had safely relocated from his hometown for “several months”). We reject Flores-Vasquez’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Flores-Vasquez’s CAT claim *577because Plores-Vasquez did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured in Mexico by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION February 24, 2014 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with CARB St aff 10/28/13 on HDV In - Use Emissions Standards FROM: Don Kopinski TO: EPA Docket # EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0472 This memo documents a phone meeting held on October 28, 2013 between representatives of the California Air Resources Board an d EPA to discuss Tier 3 heavy- duty vehicle in - use emissions standards . The meeting attendees from CARB included Paul Hughes and David Eiges , and from EPA included Tony

Fernandez, Michael Olechiw, and my self. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the thinking of the two a gencies on the subject topic. No written materials were exchanged.