alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Hon. Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-2469MN

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

v. * for the District of

* Minnesota.

Efrain Guzman-Villacana, also known *

as Jose Franco Mendoza, also known * [Not To Be Published]

as Piedad Ramirez-Reynoso, Jr., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 31, 2000

 Filed: August 7, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Efrain Guzman-Villacana pleaded guilty of illegally re-entering the United States

after deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated felony, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The District Court1 sentenced him to five years and
-2-

three months (sixty-three months) imprisonment, and two years supervised release. On

appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and with our permission, Guzman-Villacana has filed

a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel argues that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 (1998) conflicts

with 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Guidelines punishment ratio is much higher than the

statutory punishment ratio for offenders with aggravated-felony convictions relative to

offenders without aggravated-felony convictions, the argument goes, and the Guideline

is therefore invalid. We conclude that this challenge is foreclosed by the plea

agreement, in which Guzman-Villacana agreed to the application of section 2L1.2 and

the resulting punishment. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.

1995). Even had the issue been preserved, counsel’s argument lacks merit.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Guzman-Villacana argues that his counsel

should have requested, and the District Court should have granted, a downward

departure based on certain disadvantages he suffers due to his alienage and deportable

status. We conclude that the Court did not plainly err in failing to grant an unrequested

downward departure, see United States v. Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir.

1993) (en banc) (standard of review), and that counsel’s failure to request such a

departure should be presented in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, see United States v.

Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).

We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1692 

To repeal the application of the sunset in the Economic Growth and Tax 

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to tuition programs which are qualified 

under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Ms. HOOLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the application of the sunset in the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to 

tuition programs which are qualified under section 529 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Savings for Personal 

5 Education Continuation Tax Relief Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1692 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICATION OF SUNSET IN THE ECO2 NOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF REC3 ONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 TO 529 PLANS. 

4 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

5 Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to section 402 

6 of such Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1465

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 

prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PIMIENTOS, PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:
2

•HR 1465 IH 

‘‘ 9902.20.01 Pimientos (capsicum 

anuum), prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid (provided for in subheading 2001.90.35) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Johnny Lee BELL, petitioner, v. Frank L. PERRY, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

No. 13-7009.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

*707Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 24

- 00016

- CV

Justin Scott Skrhak , Appellant

v.

Kathryn Coombs , Appellee

FROM THE 465TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY
NO. 23

- 22075 , THE HONORABLE VERONICA JUAREZ DUNNE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on February 28, 2024

. After this Court

granted multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file his brief, appellant’s brief

was due M ay 6, 2024

. To date, the brief has not been tendered for filing and is overdue.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lop ez Theofanis , Justice

Before Jus t ices Baker, Sm ith, and T heofanis

Dismissed f

or Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 18, 2024
Samuel LLOYD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10383.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, et al., petitioners, v. Jacob J. LEW, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

No. 13-306.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1300]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-192-000]


National Power Management Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 13, 1995.
    On November 15, 1994, National Power Management Company (NPMC) 
submitted for filing a rate schedule under which NPMC will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. NPMC 
also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
NPMC requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR 
Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability by NPMC.
    On January 4, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by NPMC should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, NPMC is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of NPMC's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 3, 1995.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 3308, 941 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1300 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Isal BEHIS, petitioner, v. TEXAS

Isal Behis, petitioner, v. Texas.

No. 12-8958.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
#### NOONAN, Respondent, v. BUFFALO & L. E. TRACTION CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 20, 1912.)

Action by Margaret Noonan against the Buffalo & Lake Erie Traction Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the court committed reversible errors in the reception of evidence.

McLENNAN, P, j., and FOOTE, J., dissent.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12798]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Theater Advisory Panel; Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Theater Advisory Panel (Services to the Field Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on June 8, 1995 from 9:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m. This meeting will be held in Room 730, at the Nancy 
Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public from 9:30 a.m. 
to 10 a.m. for introductory remarks and a discussion of review 
criteria.
    The remaining portion of this meeting from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. is for 
the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation 
on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation 
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including 
information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In 
accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 8, 1994, 
this session will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection 
(c)(4), (6) and 9(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-12798 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
```
#### Hodnett *v.*Blankenship.

*Bill for Specific Performance.*

(Decided June 13, 1907.

44 South. 376.)

*Appeal; Equity; Decree; Time of Tailing.*— Where an appeal was not sued out until more than twelve months from the rendition of the final decree, neither the decree itself nor any interlocutory order or decree rendered prior thereto can be reviewed, since the appeal was not prosecuted in time.

Appeal from Coosa Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Wi-iiteside.

Bill by W. M. Blankenship against Mattie Iiodnett to specifically enforce a contract for the sale of land alleged to have been executed by respondent’s ancestor. From a decree for respondent complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Felix L. Smith, and Mark 1). Braixard, for appellant.

The chancellor erred in not dismissing the bill *214for want of equity. A tender must be absolute and without *condition.*— Oclomv. *Rutledge,*94 Ala. 496; *Commercial F. Ins. Co. v. Allen,*80 Ala,. 571; 28 A. & E. Ency. of Law, p. 31. Respondent had a right to treat complainant as a tenant under the *contract,*— Collins *v. Whigham,*58 Ala. 438; *Willdnson v. Roper,*74 Ala. 140.

James W. Strother, and Lackey & Bridges, for appellee.

Where a decree of the chancery court • settles the equity between the parties it is such a decree as will support an appeal although the case remain in the court for further orders for the purpose of carrying into- effect the *decree.*— Woodruff *v. Smith,*127 Ala. 63; *Kirkland v. Mills,*138 Ala. 192; *Ga\rry, et al. v. Jenkins,*109 Ala. 471. The appeal having been taken more than twelve months after the decree was rendered none of the orders, proceedings or decree can be *reviewed.*— Blackburn *v. Huber Co'.,*135 Ala. 578; *Lyde v. Park,*132 Ala. 222.

DOWDELL, J.

The appeal in this case is prosecuted from a decree rendered on the 5th day of December, 1906. It appears from the record that a final decree was rendered in the cause on the "6th day of June, 1905, in which the rights and equities of the parties Avere settled. More than 12 months elapsed from the rendition of this decree to the suing out of the appeal. The decree appealed from was but the carrying into execution the former decree. The appeal haAdng been sued out after the expiration, of 12 months from the rendition of the decree, neither the decree itself, nor any interlocutory order or decree rendered prior thereto, can be re*viewed.*— Garry & *Welpin v. Jenkins, Moore*& *Co.,*109 Ala. 471, 20 South. 8; *Woodruff v. Smith,*127 Ala. 65, 28 South. 736; *Alexander v. Bates,*127 Ala. 342, 28 South, 415; *Etowah Mining Co. v. Wills Talley, Co*121 *215Ala. 672, 25 South. 720; *Kirkland v. Mills,*138 Ala. 192, 35 South. 40.

It follows that the decree appealed from, since it does nothing more than to carry into execution the former decree, in which all questions insisted on by the appellant were settled between the parties, must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12771]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-5209-9]
RIN 2060-AE27


Revisions to the Federal Test Procedure for Emissions From Motor 
Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On February 7, 1995 (60 FR 7404), EPA published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register that proposed additions and 
revisions to the tailpipe emissions portions of the Federal Test 
Procedure for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Interested 
parties should consult that notice and/or the public docket (see 
ADDRESSES below) for a detailed description and background of the 
proposal.
    A public hearing regarding the proposed regulations was held on 
April 19 and 20, 1995. In joint testimony presented at that hearing the 
Agency was asked by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association 
and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to 
consider extending the comment period from 30 days after the public 
hearing to 90 days after the public hearing. As a continuation of 
previous EPA-industry cooperation efforts, the automobile manufacturers 
have extensive test programs in progress to investigate many aspects of 
the proposed regulations. The completion of these programs and the 
necessary data analyses to follow can not be accomplished within the 
original comment period. The EPA believes that the test programs and 
the resulting data have sufficient merit to warrant the requested 
extension of the comment period.

DATES: The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking will be 
extended from the original closing date of May 22, 1995 to July 19, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate to Public Docket 
No. A-92-64, at: Air Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. (Phone 202-260-7548; FAX 
202-260-4000).
    Materials relevant to this notice have been placed in Docket No. A-
92-64. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, 
Waterside Mall, and may be inspected weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 
5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket 
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John German, Certification Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Vehicle and Fuel 
Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. 
Telephone (313) 668-4214. Fax (313) 741-7869.

    Dated: May 16, 1995.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-12771 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Eduardo ARMENDARIS-RAMOS, aka Miguel Lara-Rodriguez, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10406.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

Marilyn Popick v. Biomet, Inc., et al., )

D. Nevada, C.A. No. 2:13-00172 ) MDL No. 2391

ORDER VACATING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER

A conditional transfer order (CTO) was filed in this action (Popick) on February 13, 2013.

The Panel has now determined that this action was included on the CTO in error.

The issue of transfer of cases involving M2a-Taper hip implants is currently before the Panel

in the case of Gregg Mattern, et al. v. Biomet, Inc., et al., D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 2:12-04931,

which is scheduled to be heard at the Panel's upcoming hearing session on March 21, 2013.

Placement of Popick on a CTO will be revisited, if necessary, after the Panel issues its decision in

Mattern.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Panel’s conditional transfer order designated as

“CTO-23" filed on February 13, 2013, is VACATED insofar as it relates to this action.

FOR THE PANEL:

____________________

Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case NV/2:13-cv-00172 Document 5 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned officers of Vinyl Products, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to their knowledge:
 
 1. the annual report on Form 10-K/A of
Vinyl Products, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vinyl Products,
Inc.
 
 Date:
      November 12, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Gordon KnottName:
                Gordon
      KnottTitle:
                Chief
      Executive Officer Principal Executive
  Officer
 
 Date:
      November 12, 2009
                By:
                /s/Douglas E. WellsName:
                Douglas
      E. WellsTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer Principal Financial
  Officer
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STTEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1800201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1800201
<PP&E>                                        12620745
<DEPRECIATION>                                   15396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                14905990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3626761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       2260
<COMMON>                                         10836
<OTHER-SE>                                     6259180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  14905990
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9236
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 51785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (42683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42683)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>