alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor IRACHETA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40037

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward A. Stapleton, III, Esq., Staple-ton & Stapleton, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Iracheta-Perez appeals the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. Iracheta-Perez argues that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b), the *907Guideline authorizing the 16-level enhancement of his offense level based on his prior conviction for an aggravated assault, is unconstitutional because it allows his prior conviction to be used to increase his offense level and his criminal history score, and it results in the violation of his right to equal protection based on national origin and alienage.

Iracheta did not argue in the district court that his sentence was unreasonable or a violation of equal protection in light of double counting. Thus, review of this argument is for plain error. *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). The presentence report reflects and defense counsel recognized at sentencing that Iracheta did not receive any criminal history points for the Minnesota assault conviction. Thus, no double counting occurred. Further, double counting is permissible under the applicable Guideline. *See United States v. Gaytan,*74 F.3d 545, 560 (5th Cir.1996); § 2L1.2, comment. (n.6). Iracheta-Perez did not show that the use of double counting at sentencing or the potential use of it constituted plain error.

Iracheta argues that illegal aliens who are prosecuted for illegal reentry are treated differently and in a discriminatory manner based on a suspect classification. Because Iracheta raised this argument in the district court, this court reviews the factual findings for clear error, and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.2008).

This court has rejected the argument that the 16-level enhancement authorized by § 2L1.2 based on a prior aggravated felony conviction results in the denial of equal protection in the absence of a showing that similarly situated individuals are treated more favorably or differently at sentencing. *See United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez,*987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1993). Iracheta has not made such a showing.

The sentence 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6793

MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT COCHRANE, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; 

SERGEANT GREER, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHEEKS, Correctional Officer; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FUSION, Correctional Officer,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections; BRYANT WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State 

Prison; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Wallens Ridge State 

Prison; MAJOR COMBS, Major of Security at Wallens Ridge 

State Prison; LIEUTENANT COLLINS, Lieutenant at Wallens 

Ridge State Prison; INVESTIGATOR MCBRIDE, Investigator; B. 

YOUNG, Sergeant,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:10-cv-00395-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: October 4, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s orders:

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment; and entering judgment of $2000 for Muhammad in 

accordance with a jury verdict in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny the motions for 

transfer and for a transcript and 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
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Poisonous Plant Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    IACUC SummariesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Logan, Utah Poisonous Plant Research Docs





- Poisonous Plants By Toxic Syndrome
- Stakeholder Meetings
- Bulletin 415
- Poisonous Plants by Toxic Syndrome
- International Journal of Poisonous Plant Research

Poisonous Plant Class - Spring 2010headline bar Below are links to Adobe PDF files of the slides from the class lectures, and answer keys for Quizzes and the Midterm Exam. 1-12-10 Green - Pharmacology of Plant Toxins Lecture 1-14-10 Welch- Principles of Toxicology Lecture 1-21-10 Ralphs- Rangeland Plants Poisonous to Livestock Lecture 1-28-10 Stegelmeier- Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Lecture  1-28-10 Stegelmeier- Pathophiosology of Plant Toxins Lecture 2-18-10 Pfister- Nitrate Poisoning in Ruminants Lecture Updated 3/10  2-25-10 Ralphs- Journal Article: Management Practices to Minimize Death... 2-25-10 Ralphs- Principles for Managing Lecture  3-2-10 Davis- Selenium Lecture 3-11-10 Stegelmeier- Photosensitivity Lecture 3-11-10 Stegelmeier- Myotoxic Lecture 3-23-10 Ralphs- Locoweed Lecture  3-23-10 Locoweed Reading 1  3-23-10 Locoweed Reading 2  3-30-10 Ralphs- Snakeweed Lecture  3-30-10 Snakeweed Reading  3-30-10 Snakeweed Reading 2  4-1-10 Oak Poisoning Lecture  4-12-10 Noxious and Poisonous Range Weed Lecture


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          36,121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,243)
<INVENTORY>                                        206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,209
<PP&E>                                          20,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,756)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,198
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,058)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,602
<SALES>                                          2,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,896
<CGS>                                            4,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,661)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,661)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,661)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### Martin RAMIREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-15144.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*309Submitted July 11, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Martin Ramirez, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Ramirez appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction over Ramirez’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny habeas relief, *Gonzalez v. Brown,*585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Ramirez argues that the state court decision upholding the Governor’s parole determination rested on an unreasonable application of California’s “some evidence” requirement and an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. His arguments are foreclosed by *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). *Cooke*makes clear that “it is [of] no federal concern ... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” *Id.*at 863. Federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and the correct application of California’s “some evidence” standard is not mandated by the Federal Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 861. Where, *310as here, a state creates a protectible liberty interest in parole, due process requires only that the prisoner be afforded “an opportunity to be heard” and “provided a statement of reasons why parole was denied.” *Id.*at 862 (citing *Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex,*442 U.S. 1, 16, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979)). This is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” *Id.*

Ramirez had an opportunity to be heard and to contest the evidence against him at his parole hearing before the Board of Prison Terms, and the Governor — after considering the same evidence that was before the Board — provided written reasons for reversing the Board’s finding that Ramirez was eligible for parole. Furthermore, the Governor was not required, as a matter of federal due process, to hold a second suitability hearing before reversing the Board’s decision. *See Styre v. Adams,*645 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2011). Therefore, even if the state court misapplied the “some evidence” standard, Ramirez’s due process rights were not violated. *See Cooke,*181 S.Ct. at 862-63; *see also Pearson v. Muntz,*689 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011) *(“Cooke*makes clear that we cannot consider whether ‘some evidence’ of dangerousness supported a denial of parole on a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Cary Fields, Respondent, v Land Mine Enterprises et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1984, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Ira Gammerman, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur&emdash; Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Fein and Lynch, JJ.
**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 officer of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. hereby certifies that:
  (a) the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
  Date: March 31,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Nicholas J.
  RossettosNicholas J. RossettosChief
      Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Sontra Medical Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas W. Davison, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas W. Davison                
|Thomas W. Davison                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 10, 2004
# C_2020036EN.01003902.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/39

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2019 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-566/19) (1)

(2020/C 36/48)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 12

- 00290

- CV

IN RE CHARLOTTE COST LEY

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator seeks mandamus relief relating to an

administrative law judge’s apparently adverse decision on her claim for Social Security

disability benefits. A state court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus against a federal administrative law judge

. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. §

22.221 (West 2004)

. We lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding and dismiss it. 1

REX D. DAVIS Justice

1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(j). It lacks an appendix and a certified or sworn record, as required by Rules 52. 3(k) and 52.7(a)(1). See id. 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). And , it lacks proof of service

. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. 9.5 ; 52.2 . Because of our dispositi on and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend the se rules in this proceeding

. Id. 2.In re Costley Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed Opi nion delivered and filed August 23, 2012 [OT06]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Caremark Rx, Inc. (formerly MedPartners, Inc.) and in the related
Prospectuses of our report dated February 10, 2000, except for Note 15 as to
which the date is March 6, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Caremark Rx, Inc. included in this annual report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999:

         Form S-8 033-86806 pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan;
         Form S-8 333-11875 pertaining to MedPartners' Incentive Compensation
            Plan;
         Form S-8 333-11127 pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan;
         Form S-8 333-05703 pertaining to MedPartners' Employee Savings Plan;
         Form S-8 333-14159 pertaining to Caremarks' Employee Savings Plan;
         Form S-8 333-14163 pertaining to Caremarks' Non-Employee Director Stock
            Option Plan and Caremarks' Stock Purchase Plan'
         Form S-8 333-38835 pertaining to MedPartners' 1997 Long Term Incentive
            Compensation Plan;
         Form S-8 333-16863 pertaining to MedPartners' Employee Stock Purchase
            Plan;
         Form S-8 333-17339 pertaining to the resale of common stock by certain
            selling shareholders;
         Form S-8 333-30145 pertaining to the MedPartners' 1994 Non-Employee
            Director Stock Option Plan and 1994 Incentive Plan;
         Form S-8 333-42967 pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1995 Stock
            Option Plan
         Form S-8 333-50849 pertaining to MedPartners' 1997 Long Term Incentive
            Compensation Plan;
         Form S-3 333-53761 pertaining to the resale of common stock by certain
            selling shareholders;
         Form S-8 333-64371 pertaining to MedPartners' 1998 Employee Stock
            Option Plan;
         Form S-8 333-68709 pertaining to the Non-Qualified Stock Option
            Agreement Dated August 6, 1998 between MedPartners and Edwin M.
            Crawford;
         Form S-8 333-68707 pertaining to MedPartners' 1998 New Employee Stock
            Option Plan; and
         Form S-3 333-90583 pertaining to the offering of Preferred Securities
            by Caremark Rx Capital Trust I.

                                                  Ernst & Young LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
March 7, 2000
* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10351

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLANDO AVENDANO-ALEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:04-CR-146-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rolando AvendanoAleman raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40895 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PHAROAH STERLING GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CR-27-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Pharoah Sterling Gibson has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of David P. Hadland, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Southampton et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 361]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton dated November 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, determined that it was without jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s application on the merits as he was not an aggrieved person pursuant to Town Law § 267-a (4), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton properly determined that the petitioner was not an aggrieved *1002person pursuant to Town Law § 267-a (4) because he failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable interest aside from increased business competition *(see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead,*69 NY2d 406, 415 [1987]; *Matter of Friedman v Town Clerk of Town of Hempstead,*62 AD3d 699, 700 [2009]; *Matter of Tappan Cleaners v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington,*57 AD3d 683, 684 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]). Mastro, A.P.J., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.