alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose Antonio CAPELLAN, Defendant, Pedro Juan Fermin, Pedro Capellan, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-1083.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

*36Andrew L. Fish, Assistant U.S., Attorney, for David N. Kelley, U.S., Attorney for the Southern District of New, York, Laura Grossfield Berger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, New York, NY, for Appellee: of counsel.

Jorge Dejesus Guttlein, Aranda *&*Guttlein, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Present: OAKES, WINTER, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Pedro Juan Fermín pled guilty to an indictment charging him with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms and more of cocaine, and with attempting to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms and more of cocaine, both violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Fermín was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. On appeal, Fermín argues that the district court erred (1) in failing to grant him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), and (2) in refusing to allow his common-law wife to testify in support of his request for a downward departure based on the allegedly aberrant nature of his offense.

I.

It is well-established that “[a] defendant’s courier status does not entitle him automatically to the benefits of the minor and minimal role adjustments.” *United States v. Shonubi,*998 F.2d 84, 90 (2d Cir.1993). A courier’s culpability “must depend necessarily on such factors as the nature of the defendant’s relation*37ship to other participants, the importance of the defendant’s actions to the success of the venture, and the defendant’s awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise.” *United States v. Garcia,*920 F.2d 153, 155 (2d Cir.1990). On the facts of this case, it was entirely reasonable for the district court to find that the defendant’s provision of a car with a hidden compartment in which to hide drugs was important to the operation’s success. Further, Fermín clearly had some awareness of the nature and scope of the enterprise, since he knew he was to be paid based upon the amount of cocaine he was to transport.

II.

Whether or not to conduct an evidentiary hearing at sentencing is a decision committed to the district court’s “broad discretion.” *United States v. Zagari,*111 F.3d 307, 330 (2d Cir.1997). Fermín did not object to the district court’s decision not to allow his wife to testify at his sentencing hearing; accordingly, we review that ruling for plain error. *United States v. Keigue,*318 F.3d 437, 441-42 (2d Cir.2003). Since the court was prepared to accept as true the defense’s assertions about Fermin’s past conduct, its judgment that the defendant’s wife’s testimony would be redundant cannot be called erroneous.

We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Doyle Randall PAROLINE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 12-8561.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 1, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6216

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEWAYNE ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00020-IMK-JSK-8)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 29, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewayne Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dewayne Anderson appeals the district court’s order

denying his second motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Anderson, No. 1:06-cr-00020-IMK-JSK-8 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 16, 2008).

We also deny the motion for bail or release pending appeal as moot.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# L_2018304EN.01003501.xml

| 29.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/35

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1471 of 19 September 2018 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties’

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 246 of 2 October 2018
  )

On page 47, in recital 8:

for:

‘For those reasons, the proposed citizens' initiative entitled “STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties” does not fall manifestly outside of the framework of the Commission's powers to submit a legal acts of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and should therefore be registered.’,

read:

‘For those reasons, the proposed citizens' initiative entitled “STOP FRAUD and abuse of EU FUNDS — by better control of decisions, implementation and penalties” does not fall manifestly outside of the framework of the Commission's powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and should therefore be registered.’.

---
Pamela PICHILLI, et al., Appellants, v. Steven RODRIGUEZ, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-0445

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

Friedman & Friedman, P.A., and Zachary A. Friedman, for appellants.

Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, and Warren Kwavnick (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, J., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Olave v. Howard*, 547 So.2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ; *Bessent v. Matthews*, 543 So.2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). *See also**85*Panzera v. O'Neal*, 198 So.3d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; *Byrd v. Leach*, 226 So.2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   ITEM 6. (A)

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR NET INCOME PER SHARE)


                                         QUARTER ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                         SEPTEMBER  30,      SEPTEMBER  30,
                                       ------------------  ------------------
                                         1999      1998      1999      1998
                                       --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                                    <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Net income                             $  6,623  $  5,784  $ 18,151  $ 17,767
Less:  Preferred stock dividend              42        44       126       128
                                       --------  --------  --------  --------
Net income applicable to common stock  $  6,581  $  5,740  $ 18,025  $ 17,639

Weighted average common shares
outstanding                             919,810   926,579   919,810   928,216

Net Income per common share-basic
 and diluted                           $   7.15  $   6.20  $  19.59  $  19.01
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
(GER 2) GI Be Hd da

ge UT TSX WS, “FI sot F Jeae HSM HX VET Se?"
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24625-24626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11325]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-5-34-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
June 1, 1995:

[[Page 24626]] 4th Revised Eighth Revised Sheet No. 8A
Third Revised Sheet No. 8A.01
3rd Revised Original Sheet No. 8A.02
2nd Revised Seventh Revised Sheet No. 8B
2nd Revised Original Sheet No. 8B.01

    FGT states that it is requesting expedited Commission action on the 
filing. FGT states that it is filing to make out-of-cycle adjustments 
to both the Current Fuel Reimbursement Charge and the Annual Fuel 
Surcharge components of its Effective Fuel Reimbursement Charge. FGT is 
proposing to increased the Current Fuel Reimbursement Charge from 2.89% 
to 3.34% to more closely match this charge with the quantities of fuel 
usage and lost and unaccounted for gas currently being experienced on 
its system and minimize the balance of its Deferred Fuel Account.
    Further, FGT states that it is necessary to revise its Annual Fuel 
Surcharge from the currently effective <0.30>% to 0.51%. FGT states 
this is required to reflect the net under recovery of fuel volumes on 
its system through February 28, 1995 and to segregate the Deferred Fuel 
Account Balance related to transportation service in effect prior to 
the institution of incremental firm transportation service under Rate 
Schedule FTS-2. FGT states that such under recovery of fuel prior to 
March 1, 1995, will be recovered from transportation services in effect 
prior to that date and any subsequent over or under collection of fuel 
should be isolated for recovery from all shippers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before May 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11325 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arquimedes MORBAN, Defendant-Appellant, Rafael GUZMAN-CASTILLO, Evelyn Gonzalez, Defendants.

No. 03-1624.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

Alan M. Nelson, Lake Success, NY, for Appellant.

Jonathan S. Abernethy, Assistant United States Attorney (David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, on the brief; Gary Stein, Assistant United States Attorney), United States Attorney’s Office for the *770Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

PRESENT: FEINBERG, MESKILL and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Pursuant to defendant’s guilty plea, the District Court sentenced defendant to 87 months of imprisonment, which the Court then adjusted to 60 months under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) for time defendant had already served in New York State custody on a related conviction. On appeal, defendant argues that the Court erroneously denied him (1) a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) and (2) a downward departure on the combined bases of family circumstances and the aberrant nature of his conduct.

We have considered defendant’s first argument on appeal, and we find that it is without merit. With respect to appellant’s second argument, it is well settled that a district court’s denial of a downward departure is not appealable, see, *e.g., United States v. Brovm,*98 F.3d 690, 692 (2d Cir.1996) (citation omitted), and defendant’s arguments that this case presents an exception to that rule are unavailing. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED insofar as the Court denied defendant a minor role adjustment, and defendant’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it seeks review of the District Court’s denial of a downward departure.
Form of letter agreement dated January 28, 2009



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 January 28, 2009 
 Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc. 
 20245 SW 95th
Avenue 
 Tualatin, OR 97062 
  

	Re:	Voluntary Temporary Base Salary Reduction 

 To Whom It May Concern:

 Each of the undersigned hereby agrees to reduce temporarily his or her monthly base salary by 20%, commencing February 1, 2009, notwithstanding any
provision of any employment agreement between Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc. and/or Bioject Inc., (the “Company”) and any of the undersigned to the contrary; provided, however, that the base salary of each such person immediately prior
to such reduction shall be deemed and continue to be such person’s base salary for all other purposes under such person’s employment agreement or under the Company’s personnel policies, including without limitation, bonuses, equity
awards, severance payments, change in control payments and any other benefits to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Company agrees that it will revert to paying each of the undersigned his or her base salary immediately prior to the foregoing
reduction upon the written request of such person, effective as of the date the Company receives such request. Except for the temporary voluntary 20% reduction in base salary, all other compensation, benefits, rights, bonuses, equity awards, terms
and/or provisions of any employment agreement between any of the undersigned and the Company shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  
	Ralph Makar
	
	  
	Richard Stout
	
	  
	Christine Farrell


 Agreed and accepted: 
  

			
	Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc./Bioject Inc.
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 131 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to reform 

funding for the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. WALSH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. 

DELAURO, Mr. FARR, Mr. HINCHEY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KIND, Ms. LEE, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. PAYNE, 

Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to reform funding for the Seniors Farmers’ 

Market Nutrition Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SENIORS FARMERS’ MARKET NUTRITION PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) FUNDING.—Subsection (a) of section 4402 of the 

6 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
2 

•HR 131 IH 

1 U.S.C. 3007; Public Law 107–171; 116 Stat. 334) is 

2 amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Agri4 culture shall use funds available to the Commodity Credit 

5 Corporation to carry out and expand a seniors farmers’ 

6 market nutrition program in the following amounts: 

7 ‘‘(1) For fiscal year 2005, not less than 

8 $25,000,000. 

9 ‘‘(2) For fiscal year 2006, not less than 

10 $50,000,000. 

11 ‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2007, not less than 

12 $75,000,000.’’. 

13 (b) PURPOSES.—Subsection (b)(1) of such section is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘unprepared’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘minimally processed’’; and 

17 (2) by striking ‘‘and herbs’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘herbs, and other locally produced farm products as 

19 the Secretary considers appropriate’’. 

20 (c) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS; UNEXPENDED

21 FUNDS.—Such section is further amended by adding at 

22 the end the following new subsections: 

23 ‘‘(d) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Not more than 10 

24 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal year under 
3 

•HR 131 IH 

1 subsection (a) may be used to pay administrative costs in2 curred in carrying out this section. 

3 ‘‘(e) UNEXPENDED FUNDS.—To the extent the funds 

4 made available under subsection (a) for a fiscal year are 

5 not expended in that fiscal year, the Secretary shall use 

6 such funds in a subsequent fiscal year for the same pur7 pose.’’. 

Æ
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
          required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
          on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OA9 (the "Exchange Act
          periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
          to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
          light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
          misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
          for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
          assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
          Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
          have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
          disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
     provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York,
     as Trustee, and IndyMac Bank, FSB.

Date: March 28, 2008

      /s/ Steve Bailey
      -------------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
      (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
      Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
Damion Nathaniel REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1150

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10694]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH50-1-6077b; FRL-5183-6]


Approval And Promulgation Of Implementation Plans And Designation 
Of Areas For Air Quality Planning Purposes: State Of Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve the redesignation request and 
maintenance plan for Toledo, Ohio as a revision to Ohio's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In the final rules section of this 
Federal Register, the USEPA is approving the State's redesignation 
request and maintenance plan as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision 
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for 
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse 
comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If USEPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. USEPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this notice. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this action must be received by June 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to:

William MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air 
Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604
    Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at:

Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Angela Lee, (312) 353-5142, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrtor.
[FR Doc. 95-10694 Filed 5-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Bruce DOUGHERTY, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-915.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

*1726Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Keith Lawrence SOMERVILLE, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-7951.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.