alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER RIVERA-SUAZO,

AKA Damien Lopez, AKA Spiderman,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30353

D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00090-EJL-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011 ** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Javier Rivera-Suazo appeals the 240-month sentence imposed

following his jury conviction of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in

FILED

SEP 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

As the government concedes, the district court erred when it considered

Rivera-Suazo’s state court conviction in calculating his criminal history instead of

determining that the conviction was relevant conduct. Without the error, the

Guidelines rage should have been 262-327 months, as opposed to 292-365 months.

Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the court would have imposed

the same sentence absent the Guidelines error. Accordingly, we vacate RiveraSuazo’s sentence and remand for resentencing so that the district court's analysis

can proceed from “an initial determination of the correct Guidelines range.” 

United States v. Munoz–Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2011) (per

curiam); see also United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1105–06 (9th Cir.

2009) (district court's failure to calculate the correct Guidelines range was plain

error).

Because we are remanding on the basis of an error in the Guidelines

calculations, we need not reach Rivera-Suazo’s arguments that the district court

erred by running the instant sentence consecutive to the sentence for the state. See

Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d at 1031.

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6971-4] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        To register for the Workshop, please send the following information via email to: Brian Heninger at                         *heninger.brian@epa.gov*                         by May 15: name; affiliation; address; phone; fax; e-mail address; occupation; area of expertise; and what aspects of this Workshop interest you the most.                     

                        Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this Workshop should consult the website for this Workshop at                         *http://www.epa.gov/​sab/​presentation-1/​index.htm.*                         Questions concerning this Workshop can be directed to Dr. Angela Nugent, Special Assistant, EPA Science Advisory Board, (202) 564-4562 or                         *nugent.angela@epa.gov.*

Dated: April 18, 2001. 

Donald G. Barnes, 

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board. 

[FR Doc. 01-10514 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, Petitioner, v Charles F. Cacciabaudo et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to prohibit the respondent Cacciabaudo, a Judge of the County Court, and any other Justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the County Court in Suffolk County from enforcing an order of the County Court, Suffolk *741County (Cacciabaudo, J.), dated June 29, 1989, which directed the petitioner to provide a sample of his blood at the Suffolk County Criminalistics Laboratory in connection with the investigation into the death of a named individual, and application by the petitioner to direct that the record of the instant proceeding be sealed.

Ordered that the application to seal the record of this proceeding is granted, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the temporary stay of all proceedings granted by Justice Lawrence in an order to show cause dated July 6, 1989, is vacated.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of an alleged error of law in a pending criminal matter *(see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger,*107 AD2d 748, 749). "Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *accord, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 353). Moreover, even if prohibition lies and an act in excess of power is perceived, the remedy is not granted as of right but, rather, is within the sound discretion of the reviewing court *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, supra).*

Under the circumstances, we conclude that prohibition does not lie to obtain collateral review of an order directing a suspect in a homicide investigation to supply corporeal evidence *(see, Matter of James N. v D’Amico,*139 AD2d 302; *Matter of David M. v Dwyer,*107 AD2d 884). In the event of his ultimate conviction, the petitioner’s remedy would be by direct appeal from the judgment *(see, Matter of Lipari v Owens,*70 NY2d 731; *Matter of Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Griffiths, Appellant.

unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Forma, J.—attempted burglary, second degree, and assault, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# New Standard for Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment

**Posted: Nov. 9, 2023**

            -   Find similar articles:
            - Equipment and technology
            - Health and safety

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released its second draft of NFPA 1970, *Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural and Proximity Firefighting, Work Apparel and Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, and Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS)*. This new standard for the fire service features updated performance requirements for firefighter personal protective equipment.

To address the whole firefighting ensemble in a single standard, NFPA 1970 consolidates into 1 document the existing standards for:
            - Clothing (NFPA 1971,  Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting ).
            - Work uniforms (NFPA 1975,  Standard on Emergency Services Work Apparel ).
            - Self-contained breathing apparatus (NFPA 1981,  Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services ).
            - Personal alert safety system devices (NFPA 1982,  Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) ).

Some of the most significant changes are focused on increasing contamination resistance and cleanability of gear. For example:
            - The new standard proposes to make particulate-blocking hoods required rather than optional.
            - The new standard addresses restricted substances such as PFAS in a meaningful way with improved testing methods.

NFPA 1970 also includes a section outlining a range of new test methods for evaluating the whole ensemble for thermal protection, heat stress impact, and protection from particulates and gases.

Although NFPA 1970 will not be finalized until 2024, most of the changes likely to be incorporated are now well documented in the NFPA’s second draft.

## For more information:

            - The NFPA’s second draft report on NFPA 1970 (with all public comments, technical committee actions and responses, and second revisions) can be accessed at no cost by  creating a free account  on NFPA’s website.
            - An  October 2023 article  from FireRescue1 features a detailed discussion of these changes and their implications.

This article is based on content in theNov. 9, 2023 InfoGram.

 Subscribe to the InfoGram
----

----

----

----

----

----

| Rating of the Borrower’s unsecured, non-credit enhanced Senior Funded Debt | Eurodollar Rate Loans | Commitment Fee | Alternate Base Rate Loans |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------|---------------------------|
| Equal to or greater than Baa1 by Moody’s or BBB+ by S&P                | 2.00%                 | .300%          | 1.00%                     |
| Equal to Baa2 by Moody’s or BBB by S&P                            | 2.50%                 | .375%          | 1.50%                     |
| Equal to Baa3 by Moody’s or BBB- by S&P                           | 2.75%                 | .500%          | 1.75%                     |
| Equal to Ba1 by Moody’s or BB+ by S&P                             | 3.00%                 | .625%          | 2.00%                     |
| Less than Ba1 by Moody’s and less than BB+ by S&P                      | 3.50%                 | .750%          | 2.50%                     |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | Attention:  Manager/Commercial Lending |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | [BANK GROUP SIGNATURE PAGES TO COME] |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

| Amount | Type   | Interest Period(if applicable) |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
| 1.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |
| 2.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |
| 3.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |
| 4.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |
| 5.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |
| 6.     |   | _____ Month(s)                 |

----

----

|   | Re: | Southern Union Company Fifth Amended and Restated Revolving Credit                                                                                                      Agreement |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| 2.   | Materials Provided Assignee |
|----------------|-----------------------------|

----

----

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6379 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Sergeant Matthew 

J. Fenton Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

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

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New Jersey, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT MATTHEW J. FENTON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, 

6 New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser7 geant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6379 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Matthew 

3 J. Fenton Post Office’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### WHITNEY, Appellant, v. WARDELL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

May 8, 1894.)

Action by Oliver B. Whitney against Lawrence E. Wardell.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

John Rusk (A. T. Clearwater, of counsel), for appellant.

Eldorous Dayton, for respondent.

HERRICK, J.

I think the judgment should be affirmed. There is nothing in the case to show that Whitney advanced any money, gave credit, or accepted the note upon which the action is brought, in reliance upon the statement that Wardell was a member of the firm of W. J. Caywood & Co., or was in any way misled by any “holding out” by Wardell that he was a member of such firm. Lawrence v. Brown, 5 N. Y. 394; Poillon v. Secor, 61 N. Y. 456; Pringle v. Leverich, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 90; Du Bois v. Lamson, 18 Wkly. Dig. 490; Vibbard v. Roderick, 51 Barb. 616; Irvin v. Conklin, 36 Barb. 64. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Intellon Corporation Third Amended and Restated2000 Employee Incentive Plan, Intellon Corporation Director Stock Plan, Intellon Corporation 2007 Equity Incentive Plan and the Intellon Corporation 2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated March 11, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Intellon Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Intellon Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Certified Public Accountant 

Jacksonville, Florida 

March 11, 2009
## N O. 12

- 20

- 00049

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL, APPELLANT

V.
KIMBERLY PLENTL, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM David Allen Russell, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge an order of dismissal signed on January 14, 2020. On February 18 , the Clerk of this Court notified Russell that his notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically r equired by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 (service); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019 ) ( notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record) ; Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (pro se litigants are held to same
standards as lice nsed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise,

pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel)

. The notice warned that, unless Russell filed a proper notice of appeal on or be fore March 19 , the appeal
would be referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline expired without a compliant notice of appeal or other respon se to this Court’s February 18 notice.2 Because, after notice and an opportunity to cure, Russell failed to comply with Rule 9.5
and Section 51.017 , the appeal is dismissed

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject
to dismissal beca use appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time)

. Opinion delivered March 25, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Ne eley, J.

1 We also note that the case information sheet from the Anderson County District Clerk indicates that Russell was declared indigent in the trial court. Russell filed an affidavit of indigency with this Court, but di d not file a statement of previous filings, and a current, certified copy of his inmate trust account statement as requested by the Clerk of this Court.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 25, 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00049

- CV

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL, Appellant V. KIMBERLY PLENTL, Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV19

- 1102

- 87) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthe n, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### Ricky Alonzo EVANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7472.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 11, 2011.

Ricky Alonzo Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Alonzo Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap*237pealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 25, 2001.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6000 Executive Blvd., Rm 409, Rockville, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sean O'Rourke, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Suite 409, 6000 
Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-443-2861.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10363 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Battery fires have become one of the most challenging and perplexing incidents for the fire service in recent years. With the continued growth in the use and sale of battery-powered devices, the corresponding increase in battery fires warrants a critical conversation about how the fire service can mitigate and respond to battery fire incidents.

Join the U.S. Fire Administration and hear from subject matter experts on the key concepts to consider when developing community risk reduction and response plans.

**Date:** Wednesday, April 10

**Time:** 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

### Battery fire incidence overview:

Brian Metzger, fire protection engineer, USFA

### Before a battery fire incident:

Adam Barowy, lead research engineer, Fire Safety Research Institute

### During a battery fire incident:

Rob Rezende, battalion chief, San Diego Fire-Rescue Department

### During a battery fire incident:

Michael Abraham, forensic electrical engineer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

### After a battery fire incident:

Chris Myers, federal on-scene coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency