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

No. 10-6246.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2010.

Agnes Holbrook, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Agnes Holbrook seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, *801120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holbrook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.*
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Prospectus  Supplement of
Residential Asset Securities  Corporation pertaining to the Home Equity Mortgage
Asset-Backed  Pass-Through  Certificates,  Series 2000-KS4, Home Equity Mortgage
Asset-Backed  Pass-Through  Certificates,   Series  2000-KS5,  and  Home  Equity
Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through  Certificates,  Series 2001-KS1 of our report
dated February 20, 2004,  with respect to the financial  statements of Financial
Guaranty  Insurance  Company  included  in this  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K No.
333-100848)  of  Residential  Asset  Securities  Corporation  for the year ended
December 31, 2003.


                                            /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

New York, NY
March 29, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jesus DOMINGUEZ-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-10300, 11-10301.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 5, 2012.

*664Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Juan Jesus Dominguez-Mendoza appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dominguez-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to establish the proper Sentencing Guidelines range at the outset of the sentencing hearing, by treating the Guidelines as mandatory, and by stating that it needed to find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to vary from the Guidelines. The district court’s failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range, and its misconception that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are required to vary from the Guidelines, did not affect Dominguez-Mendoza’s substantial rights, as the probation officer correctly calculated the Guidelines range and the district court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008). Further, the *665record reflects that the district court did not- treat the Guidelines as mandatory.

Dominguez-Mendoza also , contends that the sentences imposed are substantively unreasonable. The consecutive sentences at the bottom of the respective Guidelines ranges are substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit J-Page 1

Form SEF: Exhibit J

Exhibit Narrative

10. Attach as Exhibit J, a balance sheet and an income and expense 

statement for each affiliate of the swap execution facility that 

also engages in swap execution facility activities or that engages 

in designated contract market activities as of the end of the most 

recent fiscal year of each such affiliate.

A balance sheet and income and expense statement for BGC Derivatives Markets, L.P. is attached as 

Exhibit J-1.

A balance sheet and income and expense statement for ELX Futures, L.P. is attached as Exhibit J-2.

A balance sheet and income and expense statement for Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. is attached as 

Exhibit J-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; 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 Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee H--Clinical Groups.
    Date: July 9, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 am to 4 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Deborah R. Jaffe, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8038, MSC 8328, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7721.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 7, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-14970 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
RYAN PAUL WAYNE MORGAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1497

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh , Judge

.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Brian Ellison, Assistant Public Defender, Miami , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, THOMAS

, and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1465 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1465

Reaffirming the longstanding friendship and alliance between the United 
                          States and Colombia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2010

  Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Mack, Mr. Mario Diaz-
  Balart of Florida, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Sires, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
 Florida, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Payne, Mr. Inglis, 
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Poe of Texas, 
 Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Schock, Mr. Pierluisi, 
  Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Reaffirming the longstanding friendship and alliance between the United 
                          States and Colombia.

Whereas nearly 15,000,000 Colombians participated in the first round of 
        Colombia's presidential elections on May 30, 2010;
Whereas no candidate received an outright majority of the vote, thereby 
        requiring a runoff election between Juan Manuel Santos and Antanas 
        Mockus, the two candidates with the highest vote totals;
Whereas Juan Manuel Santos, of the National Unity Party, received 46.7 percent 
        of the votes and Antanas Mockus, of the Green Party, received 21.5 
        percent of the votes;
Whereas in the second round on June 20, 2010, Juan Manuel Santos received 69 
        percent of the votes and was thereby declared President-elect of 
        Colombia;
Whereas Colombia has overcome tremendous challenges to build their democracy; 
        and
Whereas Colombia remains a vital ally and friend of the United States: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) reaffirms the longstanding friendship and alliance 
        between the United States and Colombia;
            (2) recognizes Colombia's commitment to the democratic 
        process as demonstrated by the free and fair nature of these 
        multiparty, internationally recognized elections; and
            (3) congratulates President-elect Juan Manuel Santos on his 
        recent victory in Colombia's June 20, 2010, presidential 
        election.
                                 <all>
```
Sunoco, Inc. - Amendment No.1 - Executive Involuntary Severance Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 SUNOCO, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE INVOLUNTARY SEVERANCE PLAN 
  
 Amendment No. 2005-1 
  

	1.	There is added a new Section 5.4 as follows effective January 1, 2005: 

  
 “5.4 Benefit Payments Commencing Between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2005. 
  
 In accordance with the transition guidance set forth in
Section 20(a) of IRS Notice 2005-1, a Participant who commences receipt of Benefits under the Plan during the period January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, shall have the right to elect, in the form and manner prescribed by the
Committee, to terminate his or her participation in the Plan, in whole or in part, provided that the Benefits subject to such termination shall be distributed to the Participant no later than December 31, 2005.”
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

# A RIZONA 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent,

v.

GEORGE LUIS HERRERA , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0385 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1995

- 005573 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent Law Office of Stephen L. Duncan PLC , Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan C ounsel for Petitioner FILED 2-23-2023STATE v. HERRERA Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton , and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner George Luis Herrera seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is his third petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not distu rb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief

. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction, petition, a nd response. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 146 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 146

       Designating March 2, 2009, as ``Read Across America Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

   Ms. Markey of Colorado (for herself and Mr. Ehlers) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating March 2, 2009, as ``Read Across America Day''.

Whereas reading is a basic requirement for quality education and professional 
        success, and is a source of pleasure throughout life;
Whereas the people of the United States must be able to read if the United 
        States is to remain competitive in the global economy;
Whereas Congress, through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
        110) and the Reading First, Early Reading First, and Improving Literacy 
        Through School Libraries programs, has placed great emphasis on reading 
        intervention and providing additional resources for reading assistance; 
        and
Whereas more than 50 national organizations concerned about reading and 
        education have joined with the National Education Association to use 
        March 2 to celebrate reading and the birth of Theodor Geisel, also known 
        as Dr. Seuss: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss, for his 
        success in encouraging children to discover the joy of reading;
            (2) honors the 12th anniversary of Read Across America Day;
            (3) encourages parents to read with their children for at 
        least 30 minutes on Read Across America Day in honor of the 
        commitment of the House of Representatives to building a Nation 
        of readers; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
# Determination Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995

# Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation

Section 6 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 imposed a moratorium on the issuance of certificates or permits to motor carriers domiciled in, or owned or controlled by, persons of a contiguous foreign country, and authorized the President to modify the moratorium. The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) maintained these restrictions, subject to modifications made prior to the enactment of the ICCTA, and authorized the President to make further modifications to the moratorium. The relevant provisions of the ICCTA are codified at 49 U.S.C. 13902.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established a schedule for liberalizing certain restrictions on investment in truck and bus services. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13902(c)(3), I have determined that the following modifications to the moratorium are consistent with obligations of the United States under NAFTA and with U.S. transportation policy, and that the moratorium shall be modified accordingly. First, enterprises domiciled in the United States that are owned or controlled by persons of Mexico will be allowed to obtain operating authority to provide truck services for the transportation of international cargo between points in the United States. Second, enterprises domiciled in the United States that are owned or controlled by persons of Mexico will be allowed to obtain operating authority to provide bus services between points in the United States. These modifications shall be effective today.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13902(c)(5), I have determined that expeditious action is required to implement these modifications to the moratorium. Effective today, the Department of Transportation will accept and expeditiously process applications, submitted by enterprises domiciled in the United States that are owned or controlled by persons of Mexico, to obtain operating authority to provide truck services for the transportation of international cargo between points in the United States or to provide bus services between points in the United States. 

                        Motor carriers domiciled in the United States that are owned or controlled by persons of Mexico will be subject to the same Federal and State regulations and procedures that apply to all other U.S. carriers. These include safety regulations, such as drug and alcohol testing; insurance requirements; taxes and fees; and all other applicable laws and regulations, including those administered by the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Department of Labor.                              ( print page 30800)    

                        This memorandum shall be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

[FR Doc. 01-14596

Billing code 4910-62-M
EXHIBIT 32.1











SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert L.  Wilson, President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 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.











Date: November 9, 2010
By:
/s/ ROBERT L. WILSONRobert L. WilsonPresident (Principal Executive Officer),and Director
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DAVID LAIKEN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 113 

DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1964 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DECISIONS 

AT 23 AGRIC. DEC.1203 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re David Laiken, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 113 

Stay Order 

Counsel for respondent has given notification that the decision and order 

entered October 9, 1964, has been appealed to the United States Court of 

Appeals. Accordingly, the order suspending the registration of respondent as a 

floor broker under the act and ordering contract markets to refuse him all 

trading privileges, both for a period of 10 days, is stayed pending the outcome 

of the court appeal. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

OCT 19 1964 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Fiscal Year 2006 Senior Executive Bonus Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 FISCAL YEAR 2006 SENIOR EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN 
  

	(1).	Participants  

  
 Executive Vice Presidents 
  

	(2).	Maximum Available 

  
 Up to 50% of the base salaries of the Executive Vice Presidents. 
  

(Base Salary is defined as the Base Salary at the time bonuses are paid.) 
  

	(3).	Bonus Pool 

  
 The amount of Base Bonus Pool received will be calculated based on the following Performance Areas: Business Development, R&D Clinical Development,
Sales & Marketing, and Corporate Finance. The relative weighting of each area has been determined by management and the Compensation Committee, and the total of all areas in Section 4 is equal to 100% of the Base Bonus Pool.

  
 The allocation of the pool will be made by the President to
the other participants based on participant’s performance particularly as it relates to his objectives for the year as jointly established with the President. The President may allocate any amount to any Executive Vice President, including
none, but he may not exceed the pool for each individual (50%). 
  

	(4).	Computation of Performance Areas 

  

						
	 	 	 Goal

	  	Percentage of Total

	 
	a.	 	In-license or acquire one late-stage or marketed urology/men’s health product on terms approved by the Board of Directors.	  	25	%
			
	b.	 	Acquire one marketed urology/men’s health product for co-promotion by our specialty sales force on terms approved by the Board of Directors. (Goal can also be satisfied by acquiring a
second product under terms of 4a).	  	25	%
			
	c.	 	Out-license one Indevus product under terms approved by Board of Directors.	  	10	%
			
	d.	 	Complete enrollment in two Phase 3 Sanctura XR trials.	  	15	%
			
	e.	 	Submit NDA for Nebido	  	15	%
			
	f.	 	Cash management:	  	10	%

  

 Page 1 








 – Ensure cash on hand at end of fiscal year is sufficient to last for at least the following 12
months—50% of goal. 
  
 – Ensure cash on hand at end of
fiscal year is sufficient to last for at least the following 18 months—100% of goal. 
  

	(5).	Calculation and Payment 

  
 A recommended calculation of the bonus will be made by management and will be reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee. Bonuses may be paid
periodically during the fiscal year upon attainment of goals, but not later than October 31, 2006. Payment will be made only to recipients who are still employees of the Company at the time of payment of the bonuses or October 31, 2006,
whichever is earlier. 
  

 Page 2