alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

October 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50518

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-91-CR-37-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Young, federal prisoner number 56038-080, appeals

the denial of his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that Buford v. United States,

532 U.S. 59 (2001), clarified an amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2,

comment. (n.3). He argues that under the clarification he would

not have been eligible for the sentencing enhancement he received

under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and

its corresponding guideline provision at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3). 
No. 03-50518

-2-

The amendment that Young argues was clarified by Buford is

Amendment 382, effective November 1, 1991, which changed the

language in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). Amendment 382 is

not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and therefore may not be

applied retroactively on Young’s motion. See United States v.

Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). The denial of Young’s

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of the district

court’s discretion. Its order is AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal L 284/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 284 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 625 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 284

English edition

Legislation

Volume 625 November 2019

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2019/1808 of Amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2019 | 1 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2019/1809 of Amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2019 | 21 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2019/1808 of Amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2019

1

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2019/1809 of Amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2019

21

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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
 Sugarbeet and Bean Research: East Lansing, MI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area East Lansing, Michigan Sugarbeet and Bean Research People







Melissa S Stiefel    Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)


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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1202 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1202

  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 1997

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Sergio Lozano, 
Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano, shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fees.
                                 <all>
```
Motion seeking reargument of a prior motion denied.

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Javier, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 341]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered June 24, 2010, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of nine years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Defendant’s remaining claim is procedurally barred *(see People v Jordan,*16 NY3d 845 [2011]; *People v Harper,*85 AD3d 617 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 903 [2011]), and is without merit in any event. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and AbdusSalaam, JJ.
Exhibit 10.9



|                   |  |                                                                                         
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|B E A Systems, Inc |  | 2315 North First Street San Jose, California 95131 Phone: 408.570.8000 Fax: 408-570-8901

LOGO

March 22, 2006

Mark Carges

2315 North First St.

San Jose, CA.

RE:    FY07 Compensation Awards

Dear Mark:

Im happy to advise that the Compensation Committee has approved the following FY07 Equity Awards in recognition of your contributions over the last fiscal year.

Equity

The Compensation Committee approved
the granting of110,000 non-qualified stock options(standard 4 year vest) as well as 36,667 Restricted Stock Units(RSUs) with a 4 year vest. The options will be priced on the next Unanimous Written Consent at Fair Market
Value and you will receive the option and RSU agreements under separate cover.

FY07 Bonus Plan

Also, please be advised that the FY07 Corporate Bonus Plan will be modified to provide for an annual payout (from the previous semi-annual payout schedule) as well as an
MBO provision for Succession Planning. Please reference the Plan Document for specifics, which will be sent under separate cover

Mark, I deeply appreciate
your contributions and look forward to FY07 with optimism and excitement. Thanks for all of your hard work!

Sincerely,

Alfred
# C_2019363EN.01002901.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/29

---

Action brought on 3 September 2019 – Eugene Perma France v EUIPO – SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

(Case T-602/19)

(2019/C 363/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugene Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NATURANOVE – Application for registration No 17 007 949

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2161/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, fixed to the amount of EUR 1 170; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, fixed to the amount of EUR 1 170;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 3997

_____________________________ C HARLES R OBINSON , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County

. Stanley H. Griffis
, III, Judge

. June 7, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and R OWE and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Charles Robinson, pro se
, Appellant.

Paul M. Eza and Michael L. Glass of Stone, Glass & Con nolly, LLP, Jacksonville
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, the Chief Executive Officer of
Meade Instruments Corp. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, hereby
certifies that:

         (i) the Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2003 of
the Company (the "Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: January 14, 2004

By: /s/ Steven G. Murdock

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# Official Journal L 381/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 381 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6427 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 381

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6427 October 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Decision No 1/2021 of the EU-Iceland Joint Committee of 16 July 2021 amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland by replacing Protocol No 3 thereto concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2021/1857] | 1 |
| | * | Decision No 1/2021 of the EU-Georgia Customs Sub-Committee of 1 September 2021 amending the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, by replacing Protocol I thereto concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2021/1858] | 78 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Decision No 1/2021 of the EU-Iceland Joint Committee of 16 July 2021 amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland by replacing Protocol No 3 thereto concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2021/1857]

1

*

Decision No 1/2021 of the EU-Georgia Customs Sub-Committee of 1 September 2021 amending the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, by replacing Protocol I thereto concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2021/1858]

78

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30367

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KAREEM MCKINNON, also known as Kareem Olajuwon McKinnon,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CR-172-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kareem McKinnon was convicted of one charge of conspiring to 

distribute cocaine and sentenced to serve 96 months in prison and a four-year 

term of supervised release. Now, he argues that the district court clearly erred 

by finding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy and imposing 

a corresponding three-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

 

* 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

July 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2019
No. 17-30367

2

Because he objected to the disputed adjustment, review is for clear error. 

See United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173 (5th Cir. 2002). A factual 

finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible when viewed in context of the 

entire record. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 

2008). 

Review of the record shows that McKinnon exercised control over the 

pecuniary assets of the organization, directed another member of the 

conspiracy to safeguard these assets, and also directed this individual as to 

how she should behave while transporting assets of the organization. 

Accordingly, the record shows that the district court did not clearly err by 

imposing the disputed adjustment. See United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 

756 F.3d 422, 435 (5th Cir. 2014); See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 

345 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2019
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1393

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Javier Contreras Arredondo, also known as Javier Contreeas Arredondo

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________ Submitted: October 27, 2020 Filed: October 30, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Javier Contreras Arredondo appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Arredondo has also submitted a pro se brief.Arredondo challenges the district court’s 1 denial of a mitigating-role reduction,

and the imposition an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) (applying 2-level enhancement if the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine the defendant knew was imported unlawfully). After careful review, we find no clear error. See United States v. Hunt , 840 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; stating that a mitigating-role reduction applies to a participant substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity, but does not provide an “affirmative right” to a reduction for all actors but the criminal mastermind); United States v. Rivera-Mendoza , 682 F.3d 730, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review; affirming the imposition of an importation enhancement where the defendant made calls to Mexican methamphetamine sources and sent drug proceeds to Mexico). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Arredondo, as the record indicates that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman , 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that under a substantive reasonableness review, the district court abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,” or “commits a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors). As to Arredondo’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude that he has not established an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Carr , 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that a sentencing-disparity argument requires the defendant to show there are comparators with a similar record who engaged in similar conduct). We defer any ineffective-assistance claims for collateral proceedings. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988),

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion,

and affirm.

______________________________

-3-
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Sean F. Moran, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

**Date: May 7, 2004**