alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Juan Gerardo ROJAS, Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Warden, USP, Tucson, Arizona, Appellee.

No. 11-3458.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2012.

Filed: June 5, 2012.

*523Juan Gerardo Rojas, U.S. Penitentiary, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Juan Rojas appeals from the district court’s1 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Generally, a federal inmate’s exclusive remedy for collaterally attacking the constitutional validity of his sentence is through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court, unless he shows the remedy afforded by section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. *See Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders,*590 F.3d 905, 906 (8th Cir.2010). Because Rojas failed to show that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the district court properly denied the petition. *See Abdullah v. Hedrick,*392 F.3d 957, 964 (where petitioner failed to demonstrate that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective remedy, district court properly dismissed § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1639/2004

of 17 September 2004         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004 of 3 September 2004 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2004/2005 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 September 2004 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 September 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

Done at Brussels, 17 September 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

(3)OJ L 285, 4.9.2004, p. 3.

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nestor CAMPOS-ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7329.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 20, 2006.

*273Nestor Campos-Alonzo, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nestor Campos-Alonzo appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). The district court, with or without a motion, may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

The district court entered judgment on July 3, 2006; the ten-day appeal period expired on July 18, 2006. Campos-Alonzo filed a notice of appeal after the ten-day appeal period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Campos-Alonzo has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*REMANDED.*
Daniel REYES-ZARATE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9102.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before June 9, 2001 to be assured of consideration. 

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1354.                 

*Form Number:*                     IRS Form 8833.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure Under Section 6114 or 7701(b).                 

*Description:*                     Form 8833 is used by taxpayers that are required by section 6114 to disclose a treaty-based return position to disclose a treaty-based return position to disclose that position. The form may also be used to make the treaty-based position disclosure required by regulations section 301.7701(b)-7(b) for “dual resident” taxpayers.                 

*Respondents:*                     Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit.                 

*Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*                     6,000.                 

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:*

 Recordkeeping—3 hr., 6 min. 

 Learning about the law or the form—1 hr., 35 min. 

 Preparing and sending the form to the IRS—1 hr., 42 min. 

*Frequency of Response:*                     Annually.                 

*Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*                     38,460 hours.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports, Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-14304 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
* Judge Johnson was a member of the panel that heard oral argument in this case, but did not participate in this decision. This decision is rendered by quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-6117. Garshasb Hamid FARSIAN, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. PFIZER, INC., Shiley, Inc., Defendants-Petitioners. Oct. 16, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. CV 92-G-2646-S); J. Foy Guin, Jr., Judge. Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, COX, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON * , Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: We permitted an interlocutory appeal in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to review the propriety of the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We concluded that the appeal involved a question of Alabama law that was determinative and unanswered by contro lling precedent in Alabama. Farsian v. Pfizer, Inc., 52 F.3d 932 (11th Cir.1995). We certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Alabama: DOES A HEART VALVE IMPLANTEE HAVE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD UNDER ALABAMA LAW IF HE ASSERTS THAT THE VALVE'S MANUFACTURER FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED HIM TO HAVE THE VALVE IMPLANTED WHEN THE DAMAGES THAT HE ASSERTS DO NOT INCLUDE AN INJURY-PRODUCING MALFUNCTION OF THE PRODUCT BECAUSE THE VALVE HAS BEEN AND IS WORKING PROPERLY? Id. at 934. The Supreme Court of Alabama has now answered the question in the negative. Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian, No. 1941153, -- - So.2d ---- (Ala. Aug. 30, 1996). The judgment of the districtcourt is therefore REVERSED and this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. REVERSED and RENDERED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Rafael Torres,****Chief Financial Officer****ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and 

the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: November 4, 2004
                          /s/ RafaelTorres	 
Rafael Torres, Chief FinancialOfficer
EXHIBIT  3.1

                               THE STATE OF TEXAS
                               SECRETARY OF STATE

                                  OCT. 15, 1997

JOHNNY J. WILLIAMS
13831 NORTHWEST FRWY STE 155
HOUSTON,        TX 77040

IDS ENGINFERING, INC.

CHARTER NUMBER 01464129-00

IT HAS BEEN OUR PLEASURE TO APPROVE AND PLACE ON RECORD THE ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION THAT CREATED YOUR CORPORATION. WE EXTEND OUR REST WISHES FOR
SUCCESS IN YOUR NEW VENTURE.

AS A CORPOKATION, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO STATE TAX LAWS. SOME NON-PROFIT
CORPORATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE TAXES AND MAY ALSO BE
EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF SALES AND USE TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF TAXABLE ITEMS.
IF YOU FEEL THAT UNDER THE LAW YOUR CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO BE EXEMPT YOU
MUST APPLY TO THE COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS FOR THE EXEMPTION. THE
SECRETARY OF STATE CANNOT MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION FOR YOUR CORPORATION.

IF WE CAN BE OF FURTHER, SERVICE AT ANY TIME PLEASE LET US KNOW.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Antonio 0. Garza, Jr., Secretary of State
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000745467
<NAME> MERIDIAN FUND, INC.
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 2
   <NAME> MERIDIAN VALUE FUND
</SERIES>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       66,456,813
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      72,523,397
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,311,202
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                     204
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                        15,111,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,946,308
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       895,232
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      120,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                          1,016,012
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    74,760,663
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        3,398,093
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        1,117,589
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      168,339
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                      6,934,710
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                     6,066,584
<NET-ASSETS>                                87,930,296
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              431,067
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              351,489
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 614,217
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        168,339
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     7,623,443
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                    1,519,356
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                        9,311,138
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                     3,077,502
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                      2,832,820
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    680,645
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            128,328
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                      63,017,841
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                      	     0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                    2,388,769
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          434,329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                614,217
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        44,518,336
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            22.29
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                    .05
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           5.91
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                        (2.37)
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              25.88
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   1.41



</TABLE>
No. 406.

#### Jenello *v.*United States.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. David A. Reed*and *J. Julius Levy*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed*and *Messrs. Thomas W. Lanigan*and *W. Marvin Smith*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Salameh, President of PLX Technology, Inc.,certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form
10-Q of PLX Technology, Inc.;

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
to make 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 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
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 registrant,
including its consolidated 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 registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness 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 registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 29, 2004



/s/ Michael J. Salameh	   Michael J. Salameh
   President(Principal Executive Officer)

---
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Robert Lee STONE.

No. D-2935.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Robert Lee Stone, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Michael P. LUBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
| Jul. 30, 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Strategic | Strategic Advisers Value Multi-Manager Fund                                                                                                                                                             |
| **Supplement to the Strategic Advisers® Value Multi-Manager Fund July 30, 2015 Prospectus***Effective October 1, 2015, the fund changed its classification from a non-diversified fund to a diversified fund.* |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frst_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**frst_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=frst_StrategicMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=frst_S000034420Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3345]

In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated June 11 2001, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Cabell, Clay, Lincoln, Mason, McDowell, Mingo, Roane, Summers, and Wayne Counties in the State of West Virginia as disaster areas caused by flooding, severe storms, and landslides beginning on May 15, 2001 and continuing. 

In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in Braxton, Calhoun, Greenbrier, Monroe and Wirt Counties in the State of West Virginia; Buchanan in the State of Virginia; Boyd, Martin, Lawrence and Pike Counties in the State of Kentucky; and Gallia, Lawrence and Meigs Counties in the State of Ohio may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above named primary counties and not listed here have been previously declared. 

The economic injury numbers assigned are 9L8900 for Kentucky and 9L9000 for Ohio. 

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is August 2, 2001, and for loans for economic injury is March 4, 2002. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) 

Dated: June 12, 2001.

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-15452 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Chaz MINOR, petitioner, v. Ed SHELDON, Warden.

No. 16-5695.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.