alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-1241.

#### Bourne *v.*Curtin, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000937 10-APR-2019 09:43 AM
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MASSILLON LHERISSON
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1460

[ November 2, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2010CF002071BXX

.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach and Dan Hallenberg, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, Office of

Criminal Conflict A n d Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and T AYLOR

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Official Journal L 11I/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 011I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5916 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 011I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5916 January 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/37 of 16 January 2016 concerning the date of application of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/37 of 16 January 2016 concerning the date of application of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1863 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 11-413.

#### Uthman *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason WILD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50066

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 13, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed December 13, 2017

Christopher Seth Askins, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicholas William Pilchak, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michelle Wasser-*377man, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jami Lynn Ferrara, Attorney, Law Office of Jami L. Ferrara, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,** Judge.

*

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

**

 Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Jason Wild, a former United States Marine Corps reservist, appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Wild waived any arguments he might have had against the prospective juror’s removal for cause. *See United States v. Perez,*116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1997). When considering whether to remove the prospective juror because of his admitted difficulty with English, the district court asked defense counsel for his thoughts. Defense counsel not only stated that he had no objection to the removal, but also that he had no *Batson**1***objections. We thus find that Wild’s jury-selection claims were waived. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2. The district court properly denied Wild’s motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 because the government produced sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that (1) that there was a single, continuous conspiracy to defraud the Department of Defense between 2006 and 2010, and (2) that Wild participated throughout the conspiracy. *See United States v. Montgomery,*384 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2004); *see also United States v. Alarcon-Simi,*300 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In ruling on a Rule 29 motion, ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, *any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting *United States v. Bahena-Cardenas,*70 F.3d 1071, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original))).

AFFIRMED.

***

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

1

. *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
Exhibit 32.0





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADDED BY


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Delanco Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered by this Report.





By:
/s/ James E. IgoJames E. Igo.Chairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficerJune 29, 2011By:
/s/ Eva ModiEva ModiChief Financial OfficerJune 29, 2011
Rec o rd ofDiscu ss ion Doc k et No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD
With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA , AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANJZA TION PER SON CONTACTED DATE TOPI CS DISCUS S ED Bo ein g En gin ee ring and S e rvi ce 2014 to 2015 Variou s

Oth e r /Addit i onal Information:
Memorandum

To United States Department of Energy

From Benjamin Longstreth, Natural Resources Defense Council

Date October 24, 2011

Re Ex Parte Communication

On Friday, October 21, 2011, a group of non-profit and state energy efficiency advocates met with representatives of the Department of Energy to discuss the Direct Final Rule for Residential Furnaces, Heat Pumps and Central Air Conditioners 

### ( Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces an d Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps , Direct Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,408 (June 27, 2011); Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Fu rnaces and Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps , Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,549 (June 27, 2011))

. The efficiency advocates discussed the benefits of th e direct final rule and comments that had been submitted to the Department during the public comment period as well as documents provided to the Department by the American Gas Associatio n (AGA) at an October 11, 2011 ex parte meeting between the AGA and the Department.

The following individuals were present or on the telephone:

Roland Risser, DOE John Cymbalsky, DOE Dan Cohen, DOE Office of General Counsel Sam Walsh, DOE Office of General Counsel Eric Stas, DOE Office of General Counsel

Steve Nadel, ACEEE Dennis Beck, California Energy Commission Katherine Kennedy, NRDC Meg Waltner, NRDC Benjamin Longstreth, NRDC Tim Ballo, Earthjustice Joanna Mauer, ASAP Andrew DeLaski, ASAP

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Benjamin Longstreth

Natural Resources Defense Council
# FILED
March 17, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE WILLIAM D. F

ARRAH, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9712-CC-00573 Appellant, ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) (No. 1408 1 Bel ow) ) The Hon. William Charles Lee STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) (Denial of Motion to R educe Sentence) Appellee. ) AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20
O R D E R This matter is before the Court up on the state’s motion requesting that the judgmentin the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Based on our review, we affirm the judgmen t of th e trial court pursuant to Rule 20.

On March 17, 1997, the appellant pled guilty to

burglary and theft. That

same date, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of tw o years, one month, and one year, six

months, respectively. On August 7, 1997, the appellant filed a Motion for the Reduction and /or Modification of Illegal Sentence Pursuant to Ten n. R. Crim. P. Rule 35(B). The motion indicates that it w as submitted o n July 30, 1997, and it w as sent certified mail on August 5, 1 997.

The trial cour t denied the moti on on Sep tember 1 0, 1997, as untime ly. Subseque ntly, the appellant filed a motion to rec ons ider on September 29, 1997. This motion was also denied by th e trial court , who further ordered that “if the defendant’s motion had been timely fil ed the co urt would h ave denied the defendant[’s] motion wi thout an evidentiary hearing since there has been no changes of circumstance since sa id judgment.”

Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedur e allows a trial co urt to reduce a sentence for a defendant sentenced to the Tenness ee Department of Correction, but a mot ion to the court to reduce the s entence under Rule 35 must be filed w ithin 1 2 0 days after the date the sentence is imposed. The Rule specifically provides that "[no] extension shall be allowed on the time limitation.” and “[n ]o other actions shall tol l the running of this time limitation.”-2- The ap pell ant was sentenced on March 17, 1997, therefore, a motion to correct or reduce the sentence had to be filed by July 15, 1997. Thus, even if the Court acceptsthat the appellant deliver ed his motion to the appropriate individu al at the correctional facility on July 30,1997, see T.R.A.P. 2 0(a), the appellant's motion was not timely. Accordingly, w

e find that the trial court held correctly that the motion under Rule 35 was not timely, and i t is unnecessary for this Court to address the appel lant’ s other issues.

ITIS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the s tate ’s motion to affirm the judgmentof the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules is granted and

the judgment

of the trial

court is affi rmed. Th e appel lant being indigent, costs are taxed to the stat e. ENTER, this the ____ day of Mar ch, 1998.

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE CONCUR:

_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                         
                 
                          
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997                 
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                             116,781
<SECURITIES>                                     1,992,797
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,632,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (190,454) 
<INVENTORY>                                         13,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,647,063
<PP&E>                                              94,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,155,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,660,805
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            43,098
<OTHER-SE>                                        (662,491)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,155,511
<SALES>                                          2,438,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,438,232
<CGS>                                            2,416,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      451,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (415,422)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (859,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,808,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                948,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       948,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.02
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 309/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5916 November 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 309

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5916 November 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1976 of 10 November 2016 laying down technical information for the calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds for reporting with reference dates from 30 September until 30 December 2016 in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1976 of 10 November 2016 laying down technical information for the calculation of technical provisions and basic own funds for reporting with reference dates from 30 September until 30 December 2016 in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                     110,168
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            4,268,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                               502,029
<INVENTORY>                                             10,323,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        14,533,736
<PP&E>                                                   4,429,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,859,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          22,114,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   12,121,975
<BONDS>                                                  5,130,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                 5,040,719
<OTHER-SE>                                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            22,114,878
<SALES>                                                 27,536,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        27,536,117
<CGS>                                                   23,426,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           23,426,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         541,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (550,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (2,054,071)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (2,605,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (2,605,037)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.85)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael PONCE-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S., Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S., Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew Kenneth Nietor, Law Office of Andrew Nietor, San Diego, CA, 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 **

Rafael Ponce-Medina appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ponce-Medina argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the Guidelines range and explain the sentence sufficiently. 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 used the correctly calculated 10-16 month range as its starting point and adequately explained its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence, *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Ponce-Medina also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the age of his prior convictions and the district court’s alleged overreliance on the 48-month sentence he received for a 2011 immigration conviction before the illegal reentry guideline was amended. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*562 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court acknowledged that some of Ponce-Medina’s prior convictions were stale, but nevertheless concluded that an upward variance was warranted in light of his *542criminal and immigration history as a whole. The court did not place undue weight on the length of any previous sentence. The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

To the extent Ponce-Medina challenges the district court’s decision not to grant a fast-track departure, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. *See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales,*801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court properly exercised its discretion to deny fast-track departure on the basis of defendant’s immigration and criminal history).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 21
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 21
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 21
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 21
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 21
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 21
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 21
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 21
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 21
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 21
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 21
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 21
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors, March 28, 2022, 1:00 
p.m. to March 29, 2022, 5:30 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady 
Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was 
published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2022, FR Doc 2022-05467, 
87 FR 14544.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting end times on 
March 28, 2022 from 5:30 p.m. to 5:10 p.m. and on March 29, 2022 from 
5:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. As such, the meeting will now be held from 1:00 
p.m. to 5:10 p.m. on March 28, 2022 and from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on 
March 29, 2022. The location (Virtual) will stay the same. The meeting 
is open to the public.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06360 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Jason HENDERSON, a.k.a. Feezy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10052 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 9, 2017)

Germaine Seider, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Vincent Chiu, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jenny L. Devine, appointed counsel for Eric Henderson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved .to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493*772(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Henderson’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.