alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hung Xuong LAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George J. GIURBINO, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-56096.

D.C. No. CV-01-02443-AHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Hung Xuong Lam appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. *Benn v. Lambert,*283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 341, 154 L.Ed.2d 249 (2002). We may not grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of Lam’s claims “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We are not permitted to substitute our judgment for that of the state court. *Woodford v. Visciotti*537 U.S. 19, 123 S.Ct. 357, 360, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002), *reh’g denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 957,154 L.Ed.2d 855 (2003).

Lam contends that the trial court’s admission of nontestifying accomplice Cuong Phan’s out-of-court statements violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Like the California Court of Appeal, we decline to decide whether the admission of the statements violated the Sixth Amendment, because even if we assume that a Confrontation Clause violation occurred, the error was harmless. Phan’s statements, which placed Lam at the murder scene, were corroborated by the far more damaging testimony of Sat Tai Yu and Jimmy Quach. Moreover, the government did not rely heavily on Phan’s statements in its closing argument, and the court instructed the jury that it was not to consider the testimony of accomplices unless that testimony was corroborated by other evidence.

Finally, we share the opinion of the California Court of Appeal that Phan’s statements might have been of some assistance to Lam, as they supported the jury’s finding that Lam did not personally use a firearm in commission of the offense. Any error in the admission of the statements therefore did not have a “substantial and injurious effect” on the jury’s verdict, *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 622, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), and the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the error was harmless was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. *377§ 2254(d)(1). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Wolff

v. Case No. 06-cv-321-PB

NH Department of Corrections

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection/response filed, I herewith approve the

Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated January 26, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

February 20, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Charles Wolff, Pro Se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 16 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22139]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Meetings

    Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.
    Time and Date: September 24, 2008--10 a.m.
    Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.
    Status: A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the 
remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.
    Matters To Be Considered:

Open Session

    (1) Docket No. 06-05--Verucci Motorcycles, LLC v. Senator 
International;
    (2) Docket No. 06-11--R.O. White & Company, Inc., Ceres Marine 
Terminals, Inc. v. Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, LLC, 
Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc., et al.
    (3) Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Report to 
OMB;
    (4) FY2008 Budget Status Report, End-of-Year Possible Additional 
Funding Approvals.

Closed Session

    (1) Docket No. 1883(F)--Frank J. Kuzela v. Maersk Sealand;
    (2) LA/Long Beach Ports/Terminals Agreements;
    (3) Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters.
    For More Information Contact: Karen V. Gregory, Assistant 
Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22139 Filed 9-18-08; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Hall

v. Civil No. 05-cv-381-JD

Cheshire County Department of Corrections, Superintendent, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation (Document #58) of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated February

6, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

March 7, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Kevin Hall, pro se

John Curran, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00381-JD Document 67 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-103-PB

Sherry Roderick

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 6, 2007

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time for

counsel to meet with defendant and explore plea negotiations. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 6, 2007 to March 6, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 23 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 17, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 21 at 3:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 18, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 23 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD
<LEGEND>
THIS LEGEND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BEDFORD
HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              44,320
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                      0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                    0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                      0
<PP&E>                                              23,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     215,879
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<PAYABLES>                                               0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                             0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                      0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            21,263
<OTHER-SE>                                        (991,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       215,516
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                  (306)
<COMMISSIONS>                                            0
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                            0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  78,108
<COMPENSATION>                                      33,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (118,934)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (118,934)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (118,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.00)



</TABLE>
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 2321 Burnett Blvd., Wilmington, NC 28401, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products and organic chemicals for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                     

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 04, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2011. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1060. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E8-22216 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Preferred Merchant Hood, LLC

v. Civil No. 06-cv-067-JD

Family Dollar, Inc.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Preferred Merchant Hood, LLC, a landlord, commenced this

possessory action against its tenant, Family Dollar, Inc., by

filing a “Landlord and Tenant Writ” in the Derry District Court

pursuant to Revised Statutes Annotated 540:13. Family Dollar

responded by removing the case to this court, invoking its

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Preferred

Merchant has now moved to remand the case to the state court due

to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing, inter alia, that

this case fails to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.

Before taking up this question and the other issues

presented by the remand motion, however, the court notes that it

is unclear whether the parties are “citizens of different States”

within the meaning of section 1332(a)(1). Neither the writ nor

the notice of removal states the citizenship of either party, and

the materials submitted in connection with the motion for remand

are also largely silent on that point. The court notes in this

regard that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited

Case 1:06-cv-00067-JD Document 25 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2

liability company (like Preferred Merchant) has the citizenship

of each of its members. Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC

v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2006). 

A corporation (like Family Dollar) is “a citizen of any State by

which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its

principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

As the party bearing the burden of showing subject-matter

jurisdiction, see, e.g., Garcia Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348,

351 (1st Cir. 2004), Family Dollar shall file an amended notice

of removal setting forth the citizenship of each of the parties

for purposes of diversity jurisdiction by April 21, 2006. If

Family Dollar fails to do so, this action will be remanded for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the face of the notice of

removal. Should Preferred Merchant wish to contest any of Family

Dollar’s supplemental jurisdictional allegations, it shall do so

through a response filed no later than May 1, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 7, 2006

cc: James P. Harris, esquire

Vincent J. Pisegna, Esquire

Douglas M. Watson, esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00067-JD Document 25 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00450-JD Document 8 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 1
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Richard Darnell Amos

, * From the 3 2nd District Court

of Nolan County,

Trial Court No. 1236 6

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 0 5 4

- CR * February 4 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Presidential Documents

54051 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 181 

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8287 

National Hispanic Heritage Month, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

During National Hispanic Heritage Month, we recognize the many Americans 

of Hispanic descent who have made outstanding contributions to our Nation. 

The rich cultural traditions of the Hispanic-American community have made 

a remarkable impact on American society. The diverse backgrounds of Hispanic Americans and their dedication to family have become an integral 

part of America. With a deep commitment to faith and a strong desire 

to live the American dream, these citizens are realizing the full blessings 

of liberty. Educational opportunities are helping a new generation work 

toward success, and many Hispanic Americans operate thriving small businesses. 

We also honor Hispanic Americans for their strong tradition of service 

in the Armed Forces. These proud patriots have fought in every war since 

our founding, and many have earned the Medal of Honor for their courage. 

Hispanic service men and women have shown their love for the United 

States by answering the call to serve, and we owe them and their families 

a tremendous debt of gratitude. Their patriotism and valor have added 

to the character of our Nation. 

National Hispanic Heritage Month is an opportunity to celebrate the spirit 

and accomplishments of Hispanic Americans everywhere. To honor those 

achievements, the Congress, by Public Law 100–402, as amended, has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation designating 

September 15 through October 15 as ‘‘National Hispanic Heritage Month.’’ 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 15 through 

October 15, 2008, as National Hispanic Heritage Month. I call upon public 

officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to 

observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
54052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtythird. 

[FR Doc. E8–21859 

Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States 

v. 

Case No. 05-cr-95-01-SM 

Cushaw Barnett 

ORDER 

R e: Document No. 143, Demand to be Released for Plain Error 

Ruling: Denied. Defendant is not being held to answer for 

criminal conduct as such, but rather is charged with violating the 

terms of supervised release imposed as part of his criminal sentence. 

While those supervised release violations do include a claim that 

defendant violated the terms of his supervised release, in at least 

one respect, by "committing another federal of state crime," and 

while he may be criminally prosecuted for such conduct, that is not 

the basis upon which he is currently detained - it is to resolve the 

supervised release violations alleged in the petition and revocation 

report. No indictment or information is pending, nor is one required 

with respect to violations of supervised release terms. Should 

defendant also be charged with a criminal offense for conduct 

currently alleged as violating the terms of his supervised release, 

then, he can expect a complaint and/or indictment or other 

appropriate charging document. 

Date: January 7, 2013 

Case 1:05-cr-00095-SM Document 145 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1376 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1376

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that transfers of 
 family-owned business interests shall be exempt from estate taxation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

 Mr. Thompson of California (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Matsui, 
  Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Ose, Mr. Radanovich, and Mr. Dooley of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that transfers of 
 family-owned business interests shall be exempt from estate taxation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family Business Preservation Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. UNLIMITED DEDUCTION FROM ESTATE FOR FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESS 
              INTERESTS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2057 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to family-owned business interests) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--For purposes of the tax imposed by 
section 2001, in the case of an estate of a decedent to which this 
section applies, the value of the taxable estate shall be determined by 
deducting from the value of the gross estate the adjusted value of the 
qualified family-owned business interests of the decedent which are 
described in subsection (b)(2).''
    (b) Full Recapture (Without Interest) if Qualified Heir Disposes of 
Property, Etc.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 2057(f) of such 
        Code is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B), by 
        redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B), and by 
        inserting after the paragraph heading the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(A) In general.--The amount of the additional 
                estate tax imposed by paragraph (1) shall be equal to 
                the adjusted tax difference attributable to the 
                qualified family-owned business interest.''
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 2057(f) 
        of such Code is amended by striking ``within 10 years after the 
        date of the decedent's death and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```