alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40141 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RENE MOLINA

- CUELLAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 942

- 1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rene Molina

- Cuellar appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after removal. For the first time on appeal, Molina

- Cuellar argues that the district court clearly erred in assessing two criminal history points for his conviction of fraudulent use or possessi on of identifying information and two more points for his conviction of making a false statement on a driver’s license application.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 14, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40141 Document: 00514236356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2017No. 17

- 40141

2 According to Molina

- Cuellar, the criminal conduct from those convictions was part of the illegal reentry offense. As Molin a - Cuellar acknowledges, we review the unpreserved challenge under the plain error standard. S ee Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if the district court erred, any such error was not plain. S ee United States v. Valles , 484 F.3d 745 , 759 (5th Cir. 2007) (“An error is ‘plain’ if it is clear under current law.”)

. We so held in United States v. Vargas

- Garcia , 434 F.3d 345, 349

- 50 (5th Cir. 2005), rejecting arguments substantially similar to those advanced by Molina

- Cuellar. There, as here, b ecause the state crime “could be seen as embodying just such conduct severable by time, plac e, and harmed societal interest, ” the district court did not plainly err by concluding that the criminal conduct was separate from the illegal reentry offens e. See i d. at 350. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40141 Document: 00514236356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
STATE of Louisiana v. Darnell CROCKHARN a/k/a Darrell Crockhard

No. 2018-KH-0699

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
ROOSEVELT KIRK , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0059

_________ ____________________/ Opinion filed February 16, 2017. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Hentz McClellan , Judge

. Roosevelt Kirk, pro se , Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIA M.
We reverse the order denying A ppellant’ s motion for postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850

. In summarily denying A ppellant’s claim, the trial court relied on Atwell v. State , 128 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 201 3), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court during the2 pendency of this appeal. See Atwell v. State , 197 So. 3d 1040 , 1050 (Fla. 2016) . In light of the Florida Supreme Court’s precedent in Atwell , A ppellant appears to be entitled to resentencing on the first

- degree murder conviction

. See Atwell , 197 So.
3d at 1050

. On appeal , the S tate argues that it is not apparent from the record whether
A ppellant was actually a juvenile at the time of the offense. The record on appeal does not contain any documen ts pertaining to this issue

. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to conduct such proceedings as are necessary to determine whether
A ppellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. If the trial court determines that
A ppellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, he should be resentenced in
conformance with chapter 2014

- 220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. See Atwell v. State , 197 So. 3d at 1050 ; Woods v. State , 2016 WL 721 7231 (Fla. Dec. 13, 2016)

. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions

. ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-S2, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DARREN LAMONT MACKLIN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 288 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 4 th**  **day of August 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Ap peal is** 

GRANTED LIMITED TO **the issue set forth below. Allocatur is** DENIED **as to all**

**remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:**

**(1) Whether the government is required to include no tice of its**  **intent to seek a mandatory penalty under a recidivist st atute**  **within the charging document since such mandatory penalties equate to new, aggravated crimes?** 

**This matter is consolidated with Commonwealth v. Bragg, 67 EAL 2016 and** 

**Commonwealth v. Sachette, 973 MAL 2015 for oral arg ument.** 

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 100559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29179]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 12, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 807 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-512, K2025-510.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29179 Filed 12-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------



                                      15
<PAGE>

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2003-11
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-11


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

     (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
     preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
     under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

     (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout
     such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                             Dated: March 25, 2004
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER



/s/ Mark Wong                                        Dated: March 25, 2004
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT



                                      16
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STACEY M. BROWN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-17357

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00638-CMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2009** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Stacey Brown appeals the district court’s entry of summary

judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

FILED

DEC 15 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding because

he properly relied upon medical records of Brown’s examining physician, Dr.

Chee, that contradicted Brown’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms. 

See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008)

(concluding that the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination was proper when it

relied on the examining physician’s contradictory opinion). Because this is a valid

basis supporting the ALJ’s decision, any error the ALJ made in improperly

considering other evidence was harmless. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009).

The ALJ’s assessment of Brown’s RFC was proper because once an adverse

credibility determination is made, an ALJ is not required to credit that testimony in

assessing a claimant’s RFC. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1215, 1217

(9th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020073EN.01000101.xml

| 6.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/1

---

Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

(2020/C 73/01)

| Annual data (1000 t) |
| --- |
| Amounts of raw milk production (*2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 |
| 2018 | Cow | Ewe | Goat | Buffalo |
| BE | 4 178,00 | 0,00 | 41,00 | 0,00 |
| BG | 898,77 | 71,54 | 43,14 | 11,75 |
| CZ | 3 161,51 | 0,02 (*3) | 0,05 (*3) | 0,00 |
| DK | 5 615,20 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| DE | 33 086,81 | 6,65 | 16,19 | 0,00 |
| EE | 796,90 | 0,00 | 0,70 | 0,00 |
| IE | 7 831,25 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| EL | 654,80 | 851,70 | 338,40 | 0,00 |
| ES | 7 335,62 | 566,36 | 515,55 | 0,00 |
| FR | 25 054,77 | 317,59 | 639,90 | 0,00 |
| HR | 618,00 | 7,00 | 9,00 | 0,00 |
| IT | 12 339,75 | 485,11 | 61,99 | 244,79 |
| CY | 228,08 | 34,15 | 32,42 | 0,00 |
| LV | 980,20 | 0,00 | 2,70 | 0,00 |
| LT | 1 568,01 | 0,00 | 3,83 | 0,00 |
| LU | 407,62 | 0,05 | 3,22 | 0,00 |
| HU | 1 948,83 | 1,65 | 3,28 | 0,00 |
| MT | 40,41 | 1,89 | 0,93 | 0,00 |
| NL | 14 090,00 | 0,00 | 335,00 | 1,20 |
| AT | 3 821,19 | 12,69 | 26,11 | 0,00 |
| PL | 14 171,15 | 0,61 | 7,45 | 0,00 |
| PT | 1 939,67 | 72,57 | 28,05 | 0,00 |
| RO | 3 797,60 | 401,30 | 228,20 | 16,20 |
| SI | 628,93 | 0,62 | 1,68 | 0,00 |
| SK | 904,62 | 12,07 | 0,31 | 0,00 |
| FI | 2 397,88 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| SE | 2 760,23 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| UK | 15 488,11 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| EU-28 | 166 743,91 | 2 843,57 | 2 339,10 | 273,94 |

Annual data (1000 t)

Amounts of raw milk production (*2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

2018

Cow

Ewe

Goat

Buffalo

BE

4 178,00

0,00

41,00

0,00

BG

898,77

71,54

43,14

11,75

CZ

3 161,51

0,02 (*3)

0,05 (*3)

0,00

DK

5 615,20

0,00

0,00

0,00

DE

33 086,81

6,65

16,19

0,00

EE

796,90

0,00

0,70

0,00

IE

7 831,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

EL

654,80

851,70

338,40

0,00

ES

7 335,62

566,36

515,55

0,00

FR

25 054,77

317,59

639,90

0,00

HR

618,00

7,00

9,00

0,00

IT

12 339,75

485,11

61,99

244,79

CY

228,08

34,15

32,42

0,00

LV

980,20

0,00

2,70

0,00

LT

1 568,01

0,00

3,83

0,00

LU

407,62

0,05

3,22

0,00

HU

1 948,83

1,65

3,28

0,00

MT

40,41

1,89

0,93

0,00

NL

14 090,00

0,00

335,00

1,20

AT

3 821,19

12,69

26,11

0,00

PL

14 171,15

0,61

7,45

0,00

PT

1 939,67

72,57

28,05

0,00

RO

3 797,60

401,30

228,20

16,20

SI

628,93

0,62

1,68

0,00

SK

904,62

12,07

0,31

0,00

FI

2 397,88

0,00

0,00

0,00

SE

2 760,23

0,00

0,00

0,00

UK

15 488,11

0,00

0,00

0,00

EU-28

166 743,91

2 843,57

2 339,10

273,94

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(*1)  0,00: zero or less than 5 t

(*2)  2018 Milk Production on the farm EUROSTAT – NewCronos Products Obtained

(*3)  Communicated by Member State and/or estimated/calculated production

---
T.M.F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 5D17-2299 & 5D17-2300

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed October 19, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, without discussion, the trial court's order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing T.M.F. on juvenile probation for five counts of burglary of a conveyance, six counts of criminal mischief, and a single count of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. We also affirm the trial court's finding that these new law violations, as well as a curfew violation, constituted violations of probation (VOPs) in two separate cases.1 However, because the VOP orders fail to conform to the oral pronouncement2 and fail to specify the conditions of probation T.M.F. violated, we remand for entry of new written orders specifying that T.M.F. violated condition 1 of the orders of probation, as well as the special condition imposing a curfew. *See**Rodriguez v. State*, 777 So.2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding the written probation revocation order "must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement" (citing *Robinson v. State*, 763 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ) ); *see also**Manis v. State*, 30 So.3d 586, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (finding that the trial court in a VOP case "must specify in the written order or judgment what conditions the defendant violated" (quoting *Mormon v. State*, 976 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ) ); *accord**Kadyebo v. State*, 15 So.3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citing *Young v. State*, 4 So.3d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF NEW ORDER.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

1

Case numbers 5D17-2299 and 5D17-2300 were consolidated for appeal.

2

The trial court's written order on the motion to correct sentencing error was not in conformance with its oral pronouncements as it failed to mention the curfew violation.
Olvin SANCHEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-0015

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
BARR, MURMAN, & TONELLI, P.A., Appellant / Petitioner(s), v. Helen WESLEY, et al., Appellee / Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(87)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - science_science(562)
              - products_data(327)
              - products_maps(82)
              - products_publications(3046)
              - products_software(11)
              - products_web_tools(36)
              - multimedia_audio(224)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(213)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(11)
              - multimedia_before_after(30)
              - multimedia_image(1326)
              - multimedia_image-141769(111)
              - multimedia_image-141770(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(734)
              - multimedia_image-141772(18)
              - multimedia_image-141774(7)
              - multimedia_image-141775(141)
              - multimedia_image-141776(81)
              - multimedia_image-141783(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(215)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(21)
              - multimedia_video(600)
              - multimedia_video-149194(179)
              - multimedia_video-149195(233)
              - multimedia_video-149196(42)
              - multimedia_video-149197(65)
              - multimedia_video-149198(46)
              - multimedia_video-149225(4)
              - multimedia_webcam(1)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(1)
              - documents_file(1062)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - documents_file-149204(8)
              - documents_file-149206(2)
              - documents_file-149208(2)
              - documents_file-149209(1)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149213(4)
              - documents_file-149214(19)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149216(1)
              - documents_file-149217(2)
              - documents_file-149218(4)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - documents_file-149220(17)
              - documents_file-149222(990)
              - documents_file-149224(6)
              - news_news-149245(47)
              - news_news-149246(9)
              - news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(41)
              - news_news-149249(19)
              - news_news-149250(44)
              - news_newsletters(26)
              - news_other_news(287)
              - (-)connect_locations(2)
              - connect_social_media(8)
              - connect_staff_profiles(159)
              - other_basic-37(19)
              - other_basic-42(245)
              - (-)other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

              - 2023(1)
              - 2020(1)

location  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center

locationJohn Wesley Powell Center for Earth System Analysis and Synthesis

Human Capital        March 15, 2022        USGS Library
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


         In connection with the amended Annual Report of Bekem Metals, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Amended Report"),
the undersigned, Yermek Kudabayev, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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



Date: May 8, 2006                                     /s/ Yermek Kudabayev
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Yermek Kudabayev,
                                                     Principal Financial Officer