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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40291

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE CAZARES-ALVARADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-138-3

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Cazares-Alvarado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more

than five kilograms of cocaine. He argues that the district

court erred when it denied a reduction in his total offense level

based on his mitigating role in the offense and that 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841 and 860 are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Cazares-Alvarado concedes

that his second argument is foreclosed but nevertheless raises

the issue to preserve it for possible further review.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-40291

-2-

Cazares-Alvarado’s construction of a hidden compartment in

which to conceal the large amount of cocaine involved in his

offense was not “peripheral to the advancement of the illicit

activity.” See United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1092 (5th

Cir. 1991). The district court therefore did not clearly err in

determining that Cazares-Alvarado was not entitled to a

mitigating role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See

United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994).

Cazares-Alvarado’s argument regarding the constitutionality

of the statutes of conviction, raised for the first time on

appeal, is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Cazares-Alvarado

has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, regarding

Apprendi. See id.

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8195]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

University of Washington, Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 94-153. Applicant: University of Washington, 
Seattle, WA 98195. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model CM100. 
Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 60 
FR 7168, February 7, 1995. Order Date: April 30, 1994.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission 
electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific 
educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of the instrument.


Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 95-8195 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
#### Ricky G. WALBOURN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48767.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 17, 1994.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

*251
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5474

DENSO International America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Margaret Calhoun, as Executrix of Donald Sterling, Deceased, Respondent, v Big Apple Wrecking Corporation, *575Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Big Apple Wrecking Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered April 27, 1988, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Big Apple Wrecking Corporation, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

Following an injury to the plaintiffs decedent at a construction site, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the injury was causally related to the decedent’s employment with the defendant Big Apple Wrecking Corp. (hereinafter Big Apple). The decedent’s hospital expenses were eventually covered by workers’ compensation. Thereafter, this negligence action was commenced against, *inter alia,*Big Apple. Because the workers’ compensation Board determined that the decedent was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and because those benefits were awarded, we find that summary judgment should have been granted and the complaint dismissed as against Big Apple.

It is fundamental that workers’ compensation benefits are an employee’s exclusive remedy when the employee is injured by the wrong of another in the same employ (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; § 2 [7]; § 11; *see also, O’Connor v Midiria,*55 NY2d 538; *Koizumi v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*114 AD2d 337). Thus, "[i]f the right to sue the employer has been stripped away by [workers’] compensation coverage, it is an arrogation of jurisdiction to consider a tort complaint on its merits” *(O’Rourke v Long,*41 NY2d 219, 221). Further, determinations by the Workers’ Compensation Board as to all questions of fact, including those regarding the employer-employee relationship, are final *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law §§20, 23; *O’Rourke v Long, supra; Kerr v Pike & Son,*112 AD2d 21). Such findings are final not only because of provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Law, but also due to "settled principles of *res judicata*which apply to administrative hearings and determinations when the agency involved is acting, as does the compensation board, in a quasi-judicial capacity” *(Werner v State of New York,*53 NY2d 346, 353; *see also, Samba v Delligard,*116 AD2d 563; *Koizumi v Mount*
      *576
      *Sinai Hosp., supra).*Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RC51, 4.9 ton Capacity, 1.00 in Stroke, General Purpose Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum Operating 

Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 1,0; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 16; Stroke Ranges mm: 24 - 47

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17372-17373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8333]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,740]


Wirekraft Industries, Incorporated, Marion, Ohio; Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) as [[Page 17373]] amended by the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-418), the Department of Labor 
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding certification 
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.

    In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a 
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance each of 
the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be 
met. It is determined in this case that all of the requirements have 
been met.

    The investigation was initiated in response to a petition received 
on February 14, 1995 and filed on behalf of workers at Wirekraft 
Industries, Incorporated, Marion, Ohio. The workers produced wire 
harnesses.

    The investigation revealed that a major customer of the subject 
firm increased their imports of electrical wire harnesses during the 
relevant period under investigation and is transferring production 
formerly supplied by the subject firm to foreign sources.

  

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I 
conclude that increases of imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with wire harnesses produced at Wirekraft Industries, 
Incorporated, Marion, Ohio contributed importantly to the decline in 
sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers 
of that firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the 
following certification:

    All workers of Wirekraft Industries, Incorporated, Marion, Ohio 
engaged in employment related to the production of wire harnesses 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after February 9, 1994 through two years from the date of 
certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 17th day of February, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95-8333 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Lora, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered April 27, 1987, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, without a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The defendant argues, and the People concede, that the sentence must be vacated. We agree. There was no hearing held prior to the court’s decision to revoke the defendant’s sentence of probation. CPL 410.70 provides that a court may not revoke a sentence of probation unless the court has found that the defendant has violated a condition of the sentence and the defendant has had an opportunity to be heard. Therefore this matter must be remitted for a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16885-16886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8050]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Information Collections Under Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been sent the 
following collection(s) of information proposals for review under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Chapter 35) and the 
Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act since the last list was 
published. Entries are grouped into submission categories, with each 
entry containing the following information:

(1) The title of the form/collection;
(2) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
Department sponsoring the collection.
(3) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief 
abstract;
(4) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond;
(5) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with 
the collection; and,
(6) An indication as to whether Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511 
applies.

    Comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this 
notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated 
response time, should be directed to the OMB reviewer, Mr. Jeff Hill on 
(202) 395-7340 and to the Department of Justice's Clearance Officer, 
Mr. Robert B. Briggs, on (202) 514-4319. If you anticipate commenting 
on a form/collection, but find that time to prepare such comments will 
prevent you from prompt submission, you should notify the OMB reviewer 
and the Department of Justice Clearance Officer of your 
[[Page 16886]] intent as soon as possible. Written comments regarding 
the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection may be 
submitted to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, and to Mr. Robert B. 
Briggs, Department of Justice Clearance Officer, Systems Policy Staff/
Information Resources Management/Justice Management Division Suite 850, 
WCTR, Washington, DC 20530.
    Extension of a currently approved collection.
(1) Number of Full-Time Law Enforcement Employees as of October 31.
(2) 1-711a (City=Green,) 1-711b (County=Blue), 1-711c (Red=Population 
Centers over 100,000). Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States 
Department of Justice.
(3) Primary=State, Local, or Tribal Government. Others=None. This 
document is needed to determine the number of civilian and sworn full-
time law enforcement employees in the United States. Summary statistics 
are published annual in ``Crime in the United States.''
(4) 192,000 annual respondents at 10 minutes per response.
(5) 32,000 annual burden hours.
(6) Not applicable under Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511.

    Public comment on this item is encouraged.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 95-8050 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41680 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ISIDRO LOPEZ

- SANCHEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 235

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Isidro Lopez

Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez

- Sanchez h a s not filed a r esponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41680 Document: 00513804187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 15

- 41680

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to with draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41680 Document: 00513804187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

LPL2502, 286 ton Capacity, 1.77 in Stroke, Low Height, Lock Nut Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum 

Operating Pressure psi: 10150; Weight Kgs: 74; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 1650; Stroke Ranges 

mm: 24 - 47

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7900]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP91-203-000, et al.]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

March 27, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant, as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Dennis H. Melvin at 
(202) 208-0042 or Donald Williams at (202) 208-0743.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7900 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M