alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOG OF MEETING
DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Bassinet/Cradle Subcommittee Meeting
DATE OF MEETING: April 8 , 2013
PLACE OF MEETING: ASTM Headquarters
LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards
COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards

, Jonathan Midgett, Doug Lee,
Suad Wanna

- Nakamara , Greg Rea
NON

- CPCS ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

Outstanding ballots were reviewed:

F15, 13

- 01 Item #11: Updated mattress flatness test to include the missing mattress support bars option to the test procedure. No negatives, just comments. Comments include adding a definition for “permanent” that has been included in other standards. No changes to be made now, as a result of the comments.

13

- 01 Item #12: Warnings upda ted to clarify the font size required. No negatives, and only 2 comments. No changes to be made now, as a result of the comments.

These two items will move forward and be approved April 1, 2013 for inclusion in

F2194

- 13.

The Stability Task Group meeti ng did not report, but there is a scheduled conference call on April 18, 2013.

New Business: 6.5.4 Side Height

– It should not be a sub

- section, but instead, it should be 6.6 as its own section. The same issue is with the test requirement as well. This s hould be an editorial changes. It will be reflected in F2194

- 13.

New Business: Scope of the standard. Dave Campbell brought up an issue that he raised in the NPR comments. If a rocker/napper type of product is required to meet the bassinet

standard when in the flat/napping mode, it will be in conflict for restraints, warnings, etc. After much discussion and conflicting opinions as to whether or not a conversion product should meet both standards for the product, nothing was proposed or decided on dur ing this meeting. Subsequent subcommittee meetings (inclined sleepers and rocker products) the same discussions occurred and both subcommittees decided to include language in the scope that makes it clear that dual mode products are covered in the scope of both

standards.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin HILLERIO-MIRANDA, a.k.a. Martin Hillera, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12186 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 13, 2017)

Carol Herman, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service—Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ian McDonald, Paul Michael Rashkind, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Martin Hillerio-Miranda pled guilty to one count of unlawful entry into the United States after having been previously removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced Mr. Hillerio-Miranda to 18 months’ imprisonment—the lowest possible sentence in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range—and a supervised release term of three years. Mr. Hillerio-Miranda argues on appeal that his custodial sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Mr, Hillerio-Miranda did not move to expedite his appeal, and Bureau of Prisons records show that he was released from prison on November 3, 2017. Because Mr. Hillerio-Miranda only contests his custodial sentence, we conclude that his appeal is moot because we cannot grant any effective relief. *See United States v. Farmer,*923 F.2d 1557, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance Richardson PAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7452

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Lance Richardson Pagan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THAGKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lance Richardson Pagan seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We conclude that Pagan’s motion was in substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The district court’s order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*250We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pagan has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny § 2255 relief on the merits because Pagan’s motion challenged the validity of his conviction and should have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *United States*v. *Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Pagan’s motion for a bill of particulars and 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dameyon Antoine NEWTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11768 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 30, 2018

Kathryn Rumsey, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attor*223ney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

William Reynolds Biggs, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dameyon Antoine Newton pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and he was sentenced within the guidelines range to a statutory-maximum 240-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. In this appeal, ■Newton contends that the district court erred in overruling his objection to adjustment of his guidelines offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) because he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity.

The district court’s finding that Newton was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the drug conspiracy was plausible and was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777*F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2015). The record reflects that Newton exercised management responsibility over property, assets, or activities of the drug conspiracy. *See*§ 3B1.1, comment, (n.2); *Ochoa-Gomez, 777*F.3d at 283-84. The judgment is 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Keith BECK, Appellant

No. 17-1709

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 16, 2018

(Opinion filed: January 26, 2018)

Rebecca R. Haywood, Esq., Laura S. Irwin, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Steven C. Townsend, Esq., Eddy DeLu-ca Gravina *&*Townsend, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

The Government met its burden of proving Beck violated the conditions of release on the basis of the positive drug test on January 11, 2017. *See*U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. That test was listed on the Government’s pre-hearing petition, thus any further notice deficiencies cannot amount to clear error for lack of prejudice. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The District Court’s judgment revoking Beck’s supervised release is affirmed.

*

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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 983/2006

of 29 June 2006         

fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 15 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, and exported in the form of goods listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 24.

(3)OJ L 308, 25.11.2005, p. 1. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 2107/2005 (OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 20).

----

ANNEX

Rates of the refunds applicable from 30 June 2006 to certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

----

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

----
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel LOZA-RAMIREZ Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2465

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 2018

Filed: February 12, 2018

Christopher L. Ferretti, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Higgins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Loza-Ramirez, Pro Se

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Loza-Ramirez directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to appeal his sentence. Loza-Ramirez’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

-. The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Robert Jeffery Liller, 

 Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00309-CR

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas 

(TC# 6568)

O R D E R

The Reporter’s Record in the above styled and numbered cause was due January 16, 2017, 

but it has not been filed. The Court Reporter has notified the Court that Appellant has not made 

payment for the preparation of the reporter’s record. On January 27, 2017, Mr. Josh Stephens, 

Appellant’s attorney, filed with this Court a letter stating that Appellant’s family is unable to pay 

for the reporter’s record and requesting that a hearing be conducted by the trial court to determine 

if Appellant is indigent.

Before the Court can continue with this appeal, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct 

a hearing in order to determine if Appellant is indigent and entitled to have the reporter’s record 

provided at no cost to him. The trial court is authorized to enter any necessary orders and file 

them, along with the trial court’s findings, with the District Clerk of Andrews County on or before 

February 16, 2017. The District Clerk shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 
2

trial court’s findings and/or orders and forward the same to this Court on or before February 26, 

2017. Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this 

Court on or before February 26, 2017.

The due date of the Reporter’s Record will be determined after the trial court’s 

findings are filed with this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27

th day of January, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 250

Calling for better awareness and use of federally supported research findings

on the social and economic costs of sleep deprivation and sleep disorders.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1998

Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. UPTON, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. LAFALCE, Mrs.

LOWEY, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MCDADE, Mr. CAMPBELL,

Mr. LANTOS, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling for better awareness and use of federally supported

research findings on the social and economic costs of

sleep deprivation and sleep disorders.

Whereas the National Sleep Foundation has found that untreated sleep disorders and chronic sleepiness is estimated to cost American families and businesses more

than $100,000,000,000 per year in lost productivity and

opportunity;

Whereas sleep deprivation has been identified as the cause or

a contributing factor in a growing number of on-the-job

industrial accidents;

Whereas the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

estimates that at least 100,000 motor vehicle crashes are
2

•HCON 250 IH

caused by fatigued drivers each year, causing 1,500 fatalities, 71,000 injuries, and $12,500,000,000 in economic losses;

Whereas national surveys find that 52 percent of all adults

report having driven while impaired by drowsiness;

Whereas few States have developed the programs to educate

the public about the dangers of sleep deprivation while on

the road or at work;

Whereas national surveys show that Americans are chronically sleep deprived, with an estimated 63,000,000

Americans suffering from excessive daytime sleepiness;

Whereas it is estimated that 40,000,000 Americans suffer

from sleep disorders, 95 percent of which remain

undiagnosed and untreated;

Whereas studies have concluded that the general public, policymakers, and doctors lack basic knowledge about the

symptoms of and the social and economic costs of sleep

disorders; and

Whereas the National Sleep Foundation is mobilizing an effort to raise public awareness of the public health risks

caused by sleep disorders during National Sleep Awareness Week, which is March 30, 1998, through April 5,

1998: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) encourages States and Federal agencies to

4 use federally sponsored research to develop edu5 cation programs to raise awareness of health profes-
3

•HCON 250 IH

1 sionals and the public about the dangers of sleep

2 deprivation;

3 (2) calls for additional Federal research that

4 would lead to proper diagnosis and treatment of

5 sleep disorders;

6 (3) urges Federal agencies to help facilitate the

7 education of primary care practitioners in the proper

8 diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders; and

9 (4) supports educational programs for research10 ers, accident investigators and law enforcement offi11 cials to identify transportation and workplace acci12 dents caused by or related to fatigue or sleep depri13 vation.

Æ
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 104

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the elections in Albania

scheduled for June 29, 1997, and the admission of a free and democratic

Albania to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 23, 1997

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the elections

in Albania scheduled for June 29, 1997, and the admission of a free and democratic Albania to the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the elections in Albania scheduled for June

4 29, 1997, should be free and open;

5 (2) all political parties of Albania should honor

6 the results of such elections; and

7 (3) the Administration should work with other

8 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
2

•HCON 104 IH

1 (NATO) as soon as possible to admit a free and

2 democratic Albania to NATO.

Æ
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION**COMM 2014-UBS5 Mortgage Trust (the “Trust”)**

 

I, William A. Clarkson, onbehalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer for the HarwoodCenter Mortgage Loan (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to DeutscheMortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, the Depositor, each Other Depositorand their respective officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledgeand intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.             I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activitiesduring the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) that it servedas Special Servicer for the Harwood Center Mortgage Loan and the CertifyingServicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2.             To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled allof its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

Date:February 28, 2019

 

 

TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

By: /s/ William A. Clarkson

Name: William A. Clarkson

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

 

280 Park Avenue, New York,NY 10017

T 212.883.2800  F 212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
#### Gregory E. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16715

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 6, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 26, 2017

Lawrence David Rohlfing, Attorney, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

In Seon Jeong, Social Security Administration-Office of General Counsel, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RICE,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District *395of Washington, sitting by designation,

*395MEMORANDUM ***

Gregory E. Walker appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo and may reverse the agency’s denial of benefits only if the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or contains legal error. *Garrison v. Colvin,*759 F.3d 995, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

Walker argues the ALJ erred in failing to explain why the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) departed from the “accepted” or “adopted” finding that Walker was limited to one- and two-step tasks, as opined by the reviewing provider Sally Skewis, Ph.D. Notably, Walker does not challenge the weight given to any medical opinion or the ALJ’s finding that Walker was not entirely credible.

A review of the ALJ’s decision demonstrates the ALJ did not accept or adopt the limitation to one- and two-step tasks, although the ALJ adopted a separate portion of Dr. Skewis’s opinion. As such, Walker’s argument is based on a false premise and thus fails. Walker does not otherwise argue the RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Walker has waived any additional argument that the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence. *Maldonado v. Morales,*556 F.3d 1037, 1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Arguments made in passing and inadequately briefed are waived.”).

Moreover, the ALJ found Walker was not eligible for benefits because Walker was non-compliant with his treatment regimen without providing a good reason. This is an independent basis for denying Walker’s application. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1530(b). Walker never challenged this finding and thus waives the argument. *Maldonado,*556 F.3d at 1048 n.4. As a result, any purported error in Walker’s assigned RFC would be harmless.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 85-6565.

#### Godbee *v.*Newsome, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.