alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3796 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3796

                  For the relief of Salah Naji Sujaa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2006

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Salah Naji Sujaa.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SALAH NAJI SUJAA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) and section 
240 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a), Salah Naji Sujaa shall be eligible 
for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that 
of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 
application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Salah Naji Sujaa enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and, if otherwise 
eligible, shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Salah Naji Sujaa, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos ESTRELLA-CAMBRANIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40189.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Pub-lie Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Estrella-Cambranis appeals his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry and his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment and three years of unsupervised release. Estrella-Cambranis challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Estrella-Cambranis’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Estrella-Cambranis contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Estrella-Cambranis properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Selected Bibliographical References 

Caja General de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Granada. Obra Social. Luz sobre papel : la imagen de 

Granada y la Alhambra en las fotografías de J. Laurent / [dirección, María del Mar Villafranca Jiménez, 

Rafael Ruiz Pablos ; coordinación general, Carmen Yusty ; comisarios Javier Piña Samos, Carlos 

Sánchez Gómez]. Granada, 2007. (Some translation into English)

Fontanella, Lee. La historia de la fotografia en España: Desde sus orígenes hasta 1900. Madrid, 1981. 

Gil-Díez Usandizaga, Ignacio, ed. Las fotografias de J. Laurent (1816–1886) y La Rioja. Logroño, 2011. 

Huguet, José, Carlos Teixidor, ... [et al.]. Las fotografías valencianas de J. Laurent. Valencia, 2003. 

Kennel, Sarah, with Diane Waggoner and Alice Carver-Kubik. In the Darkroom: An Illustrated Guide to 

Photographic Processes before the Digital Age. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 2010. 

Martínez Burgos, M. El Arco de Santa María y El Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Burgos : notas 

seleccionadas. Burgos, 1929. 

Matulytė, Margarita, Evaldas Galvanauskas and Carlos Teixidor. ¡Hola, España! : XIX amžiaus Ispanijos 

fotografijos = fotografías de la España del siglo XIX. Vilnius, c2005. 

Museo del Prado. Catálogo de las alhajas del Delfín / Diego Angulo Iñiguez ; fotografías, Mario Carrieri. 

Madrid, 2011. 

Museo del Prado. El grafoscopio : un siglo de miradas al Museo del Prado (1819-1920) / edición a cargo 

de José Manuel Matilla y Javier Portús ; con textos de María de los Santos García Felguera, Helena 

Pérez Gallardo. Madrid, 2004. 

Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya. El Gótico en las colecciones del MNAC / textos, Rafael Cornudella, 

Cèsar Favà, Guadaira Macías ; con una colaboración de Joan Duran-Porta ; fotografías, Jordi Calveras. 

Barcelona, 2011. 

Patrimonio Nacional. La fotografía en las colecciones reales : salas de exposiciones del Palacio Real, 

Madrid, mayo/junio 1999 ... / [comisarias, Margarita González Cristóbal, Leticia Ruiz Gómez]. Madrid, 

c1999.

Priega, Carmen, Ana Gutiérrez, Isabel Argerich, and Purificación Nájera. Jean Laurent en el Museo 

Municipal de Madrid, vol. 1. Edited by Isabel Tuda. Madrid, 2005.

Roswag, Alfonso, Nouveau Guide du Touriste en Espagne et Portugal – Itinéraire Artistique. Madrid, 

1879.

Sanchidrián Gallego, Jesús María. Ávila romántica : Ávila monumental, artística y pintoresca en la 

fotografía de J. Laurent (1864-1886). Piedra Caballera, 2010.

Teixidor, Carlos (comisario de la exposición). Sevilla artística y monumental, 1857-1880: fotografías de J. 

Laurent. Sevilla, 2008. 

Teixidor, Carlos, Carlos Nárdiz, José Ramón Navarro, Ignacio González, José Aguilar, Dora Nicolás, and 

José María de Ureña. Obras públicas de España: Fotografías de J. Laurent, 1858–1870. Edited by 

Francisco Javier Rodríguez and José María Coronado. Ciudad Real, 2003.
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,          
|As Adopted Pursuant to                       
|Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital Properties III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2007
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2007



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Jack Dewhan RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. FELTS, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-7466.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Jack Dewhan Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jack Dewhan Randolph appeals the district court’s judgment order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Randolph v. Felts,*No. 5:05-cv-00805 (S.D.W.Va. July 21, 2006). 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.*

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 To the extent Randolph may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we deny authorization.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Wade POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30377.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Frank R. Papagni, Jr., Esq., USEU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Sabitt, Esq., Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jesse Wade Powell appeals from the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Powell contends that two of his state convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. Specifically, he contends that under the relevant state sentencing guidelines, he could not have been imprisoned for more than one year.

We disagree. These state convictions qualify for the enhanced sentence under § 924(e) because the statutory maximum sentences are “term[s] exceeding one year.” *See United States v. Murillo,*422 F.3d 1152, 1154-55 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as such crimes are defined by statute, references the statutory maximum, not the guidelines maximum); *United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), did not retroactively alter the maximum sentence that could have been imposed at the time of the defendant’s prior conviction).

Powell further contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the ACCA requires the jury to find prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judge made findings based on the nature of his prior convictions. These contentions are foreclosed. *See Murillo,*422 F.3d at 1155; *United States v. Smith,*390 F.3d 661, 666-67 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that a district court determines no more than the fact of a prior conviction when examining a defendant’s prior convictions for purposes of the § 924(e) enhancement).

To the extent Powell contends his sentence was unreasonable under *United States v. Booker, 543*U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. *786738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this contention is waived. *See United, States v. Romm,*455 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that arguments raised by a party for the first time in its reply brief are deemed waived).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6749
FRANCIS AKINRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICIA MAHER, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; GEORGE W. BUSH, President of United States of America, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:02-cv-00555-CCB) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Akinro, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Francis Akinro appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his case based on newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Akinro v. Maher , No. 1:02-cv-00555-CCB (D. Md. Apr. 25, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose FERREIRA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6213.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 29, 2009.

Jose Ferreira, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*257PER CURIAM:

Jose Alberto Ferreira appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. *United States v. Ferreira,*No. 1:90-cr-00432-1 (E.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934   Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):   July 29, 2004 Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
   Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation)
    
    6719Commission File Number
    
    52-2301683
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
   Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.
140 Broadway, 39th Floor, New York, New York 10005
(212) 978-4700 (Address of principal executive offices and telephone number, including area code)




---



##### 



Item 12.
    Results of Operations and Financial Condition. On July 29, 2004, Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. issued the press release
attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 announcing its results for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004, which is incorporated by reference herein and furnished pursuant
to Item 12 of Form 8-K. The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including the
information set forth in Exhibit 99.1, shall not be deemed to be filed for
the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release of Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. dated July 29, 2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. Date:   July 29, 2004  ODYSSEY RE HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/   Donald L. SmithName:
    Donald L. SmithTitle:
    Senior Vice President,
GeneralCounsel and Corporate
Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee WESTOM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30174.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

*782Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Jared C. Kimball, Esq., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dan B. Johnson, Esq., Dan B. Johnson, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Lee Westom appeals from the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Westom contends that the district court erred by imposing the ACCA enhancement because his prior Washington state convictions for second degree burglary were not violent felonies. Under the ACCA, a burglary involving an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime qualifies as a violent felony. *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990).

Here, the charging information and guilty plea statement from Westom’s prior second degree burglary convictions satisfy the elements of generic burglary. *See*Taylor; 495 U.S. at 599, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143; *United States v. Kilgore,*7 F.3d 854, 855 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that a location identified by a common street address is a building within the meaning of generic burglary).

We reject Westom’s contention that his guilty plea statement does not establish that his convictions involved entry into a building because it does not mention the street address recited in the information. By pleading guilty, Westom admitted burglarizing the building described in the information. *See United States v. Guerrero-Velasquez,*434 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2006) (“By pleading guilty [a defendant] admit[s] all of the facts charged in the information.”).

Westom’s contention that his prior convictions were required to be pleaded in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is foreclosed by *United States v. Brown,*417 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 20, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

133486 & (22) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133486 

 COA: 274888 

Muskegon CC: 05-051481-FH,

CURTIS DWAYNE MEANS, 05-051482-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of September 12, 2007, the defendant’s appellate counsel was directed to 

file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the 

application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. That court shall treat the defendant’s 

application as having been filed within the deadline set forth in MCR 7.205(F) and shall 

decide whether to grant, deny, or order other relief, in accordance with MCR 

7.205(D)(2). The defendant’s attorney acknowledges that the defendant did not 

contribute to the delay in filing and admits his sole responsibility for the error. 

Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his appeal as a result of constitutionally 

ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 

1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 

143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999). 

Costs are imposed against appellate counsel, only, in the amount of $250, to be 

paid to the Clerk of this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d1213 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 20, 2007 

 Clerk
#### In the Matter of Gerald Strobel et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 861]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 1, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging, inter alia, that respondents acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in issuing a permit for and undertaking the construction of a spillway at a freshwater pond in the Town of Clarence (respondent). Inasmuch as respondent moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and a special proceeding may be summarily determined “upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised” (CPLR 409 [b]; *see*CPLR 7804 [a]; *Matter of Barreca v DeSantis,*226 AD2d 1085, 1086 [1996]), we reject petitioners’ contention that Supreme Court’s consideration was limited to the issue whether the petition contained a cognizable legal theory *(see*CPLR 7804 [f]; *Matter of Conners v Town of Colonie,*108 AD3d 837, 839 [2013]). We further conclude that the court properly determined that none of *1403petitioners’ causes of action has merit (see *generally Held v Kaufman,*91 NY2d 425, 430-431 [1998]). Present — Centra, J.R, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.