alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irving E. RODRIGUEZ-MUNGUIA Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4219

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 7, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Ashe-ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Irving E. Rodriguez-Munguia pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether plea counsel was ineffective. Rodriguez-Munguia *250was notified of his right to file a pro se brief but has not done so, We affirm.

Rodriguez-Munguia’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is only cognizable on direct appeal if it conclusively appears on the record that counsel was ineffective. *United States v. Galloway,*749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014). To succeed on.a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Rodriguez-Munguia must show that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense,” *id.*at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The record before us does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and Rodriguez-Munguia’s claim therefore should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *See United States v. Faulls,*821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Rodriguez-Munguia, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Rodriguez-Munguia requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Rodriguez-Munguia.

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*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 3 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 3

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall neither exceed 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
national product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Kyl introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall neither exceed 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
national product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of the 
United States Government for any fiscal year may not exceed its 
receipts for that fiscal year.
    ``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the outlays of the 
United States Government for a fiscal year may not exceed 19 per centum 
of the Nation's gross national product for that fiscal year.
    ``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for suspension of 
the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for 
which three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide, by 
a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or 
over 19 per centum of the Nation's gross national product.
    ``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
United States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays 
shall include all outlays of the United States except those for the 
repayment of debt principal.
    ``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal year 
beginning after its ratification and to subsequent fiscal years, but 
not to fiscal years beginning before October 1, 2001.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel; (SEP)--GH20-002, Malaria Operations 
Research to Improve Malaria Control and Reduce Morbidity and Mortality 
in Western Kenya; GH20-003, Conducting Public Health Research in 
Colombia; GH21-003, Advancing Public Health Research in Kenya; and 
GH22-001, Enhancing Capacity for Strategic and Applied Research 
Activities in Support of Control and Elimination of Malaria and Other 
Parasitic Diseases.
    Date: April 13, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Hylan Shoob, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Global Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop 
H21-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 639-4796; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b5348737474795b787f78357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6fee5ded9d9d4f6d5d2d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-05751 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston Cornelius EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6207

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 12, 2018

Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, United States Attorney, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*144Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Preston Cornelius Everett was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. *United States v. Everett,*164 Fed.Appx. 392 (4th Cir. 2006). Everett has now filed his second notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. Because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative. 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 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                            |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -
|Parent                                      |  | State or OtherJurisdiction of Incorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Mayflower Bancorp, Inc.                     |  | Massachusetts                               |  |                     |  
|                                            |  |                                            
|Subsidiary                                  |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|Mayflower Co-operative Bank                 |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
|                                            |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of Mayflower Co-operative Bank |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|MFLR Securities Corporation                 |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
|                                            |  |                                            
|Mayflower Plaza, LLC                        |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
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 Quarterly Report of ioWorldMedia, Incorporated, a Florida corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas Bean, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Thomas BeanThomas BeanChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Exective Officer and Principal Financial Officer)Date:  May 16, 2011
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1947 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1947

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 of 31 October 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 on detailed rules for application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 299 , 01/11/2002 P. 0017 - 0017 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002

of 31 October 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 on detailed rules for application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 545/2002(2), and in particular Article 32(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Belgian and Italian authorities have informed the Commission that Antwerp and Bologna are no longer representative import markets for fruit and vegetables. They should therefore be withdrawn from the list in Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 453/2002(4).

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 is amended as follows:

1. The first indent is replaced by:

"- Kingdom of Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg: Brussels,"

2. The eighth indent is replaced by:

"- Italian Republic: Milan,"

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, 31 October 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(4) OJ L 72, 14.3.2002, p. 9.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10


                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                               QUANTUM CORPORATION
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
                            (as Amended May 29, 2001)

     QUANTUM CORPORATION (the "Company"), having adopted the Quantum Corporation
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"), and amended and restated the Plan in
its entirety most recently effective as of May 29, 2001, hereby amends the
restated Plan as follows:

     1.   Section 24 is deleted in its entirety.

     2.   This Amendment No. 1 is effective as of May 1, 2002.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has
executed this Amendment No. 1 to the restated Plan on the date indicated below.


                                    QUANTUM CORPORATION



Dated: May 1, 2002                  By: /s/ Shawn Hall
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Shawn Hall
                                        Vice President, General Counsel &
                                        Secretary
#### Marivel Moreno HERNANDEZ; Yael Chavez Moreno, Petitioners v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60799 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 8, 2017

*331Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioners

Virginia M. Lum, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Kevin James Conway, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marivel Moreno Hernandez and her son Yael Chavez Moreno petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) following the denial by the immigration judge of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the denial of relief for substantial evidence. *Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Moreno Hernandez was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. The record does not compel the conclusion that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, as the domestic partner of a person who was persecuted by Mexican authorities. *See Chen,*470 F.3d at 1134. Though she argues that her testimony “strongly supports a finding” that she was targeted on account of her relationship, the evidence does not compel such a finding. *See id.*Moreover, she has not identified any evidence demonstrating that this group would be seen as a recognizable group in Mexico. *See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 522 (5th Cir. 2012). Because she offered no evidence establishing the involvement of the police department or other government agency and relies on evidence that Mexico has widespread police corruption, the record does not compel a conclusion that she would more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government upon removal. *See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,*794 F.3d 485, 493-94 (5th Cir. 2015); *Roach v. Lynch,*632 Fed.Appx. 192, 199 (5th Cir. 2015).

Moreno Hernandez’s.petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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. JAE HO CHUNG, a.k.a. Jae Chung, a.k.a. Jay Chung, a.k.a. Steve Chung, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50186

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

*975Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark Aveis, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Wolfe, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jae Ho Chung, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *975*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jae Ho Chung appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 63-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chung’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 Chung the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Chung waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. 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 as to Chung’s plea or any aspects of the sentence that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Railroad Retirement Board

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., March 23, 2022.

# PLACE:

                        Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must submit a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive dial-in information. All requests must be sent to                         *SecretarytotheBoard@rrb.gov.*

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

(1) Re-Entry Committee Briefing: Re-entry updates, Testing updates

(2) SCOTUS Wisconsin Central Update

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, (312) 751-4920.

*Authority*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: March 4, 2022.

Stephanie Hillyard,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-05007 Filed 3-4-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-P