alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tony JONES, also known as Boochie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30176

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2009.

Martin E. Landrieu, Gordon, Arata, MeCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, Maurice Landrieu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Robert Francis Fleming, Jr., Law Offices of Robert Fleming, Covington, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tony Jones appeals the total 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine hydrochloride and conspiring, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, to use, carry, and possess firearms in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. Jones argues that the district court erred by treating his 2003 state felony drug conviction as a “prior conviction” for purposes of enhancing his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). He argues that because he was convicted of the state felony drug offense during the time period of the conspiracy alleged in the federal indictment, the state felony drug conviction could not have been a “pri- or conviction” for purposes of § 841(b)(1)(A).

The issue is a question of law ordinarily subject to de novo review. *See United States v. Mankins,*135 F.3d 946, 949 (5th Cir.1998). The Government argues that review should be limited to plain error. We need not decide the question of the appropriate standard of review because the district court did not err.

*368The mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for § 841(a) offenses increases to 20 years of imprisonment if the defendant “commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final.” § 841(b)(1)(A). Jones does not dispute that his state conviction was final or that the conviction was for a felony drug offense. The issue for appeal is whether the conviction constitutes a “prior conviction” for purposes of § 841(b)(1)(A). The sentence enhancement was proper because Jones’s 2003 state felony drug conviction was final well before the 2006 end of the conspiracy as alleged in the federal indictment. *See United States v. Green,*293 F.3d 886, 894 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Wheelock,*No. 93-8433, 21 F.3d 1109, 1994 WL 171737 at *3 (5th Cir. Apr.29, 1994) (unpublished); *see also*5th Cir. R. 47.5.3 (unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent); *c.f. United States v. Hass,*150 F.3d 443, 450 (5th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS ESTELA FLORES, AKA Estela

Santos

- Flores,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 74012

Agency No. A200

- 883

- 291

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10 , 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Santos Estela Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for review

of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying h er application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We hav e

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 74012

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review in part, grant in part, and we remand

.

In her opening b rief, Flores does not challenge the agency’s dispositive

determination that her asylum application was untimely

. See Corro

- Barragan v.

Holder , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening

brief resulted in waiver). Thus, w e deny the petition as to Flores’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Flores failed to show i t is more likely than not that s he will be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescenc e of the government of El Salvador

. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 ( 9th Cir. 2009).

As to withholding of removal, this court’ s decision in Barajas

- Romero v.

Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 356

- 60 (9th Cir. 2017)

, came down after the BIA’s decision

.

Thus, we grant the petition for review as to withholding of removal, and remand

this claim to the BIA to determine the impact , if any, of this decision. See INS v.

Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

P ETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
#### Martin *v.*Oslin.

The action being for the conversion of a mule and for the recovery of hire, a verdict finding a specific sum with interest thereon from a date preceding the time of conversion, is contrary to law, both because interest as such is not recoverable in the action, and if it were recoverable, the accrual thereof would begin with the conversion and not before. Irrespective of other grounds of the motion, the court was warranted in granting a new trial for this cause; and inasmuch as the case, on its substantial merits, is by no means clear in behalf of the plaintiff below, the judgment granting a new trial is affirmed.

July 30, 1894.

Trover. Before Judge Wellborn. Hall superior court. July term, 1893.

F. M. Johnson, W. F. Findley and Glenn & Maddox, for plaintiff.

H. H. Perry and H. H. Dean, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Idaho Panhandle 
National Forest's Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee will meet 
Friday, May 15, 2009, at 9 a.m. in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho for a business 
meeting. The business meeting is open to the public.

DATES: May 7, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is the Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests' Supervisor's Office, located at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur 
d'Alene, Idaho 83815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor 
and Designated Federal Official, at (208) 765-7369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda will focus on reviewing 
proposals for forest projects and recommending funding during the 
business meeting.
    The public forum begins at 1 p.m.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Ranotta K. McNair,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-11157 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2244

TYRO R. BEATTY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCOTT M. THOMAS, Official Capacity as OIC; MICHAEL A. JONES, individually as Director; NAVSEA INACTIVE SHIP’S MANAGEMENT OFFICE; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND HQ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-05-71-2-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: July 14, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyro R. Beatty, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence RichardLeonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tyro R. Beatty appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing his employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beatty v. Thomas , No. CA-05-71- 2-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. June 15 and Oct. 25, 2005). We deny Beatty’s motion to expedite. 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
#### In the Matter of Javone C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Submitted May 11, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00017

- CR

C HRISTOPHER L

AVELL M C F ADDEN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 367th District Court

of Denton County (F16

- 2699

- 367 )

March 14 , 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRI CT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
[914 NE2d 141, 885 NYS2d 449]

#### In the Matter of Flora Fasoldt et al., Respondents, v Lawrence Bugbee et al., Constituting the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, et al., Respondents, and Christopher N. Consuello et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of James Brearton et al., Respondents, v Lawrence Bugbee et al., Constituting the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, et al., Respondents, and Christopher N. Consuello et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Argued August 25, 2009;

decided August 26, 2009

*727APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David L. Gruenberg,*Troy, for appellants in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.

*Thomas V. Kenney, Jr.,*Troy, for respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed and proceedings dismissed (see *Matter of Cass v Krakower,*13 NY3d 118 [2009] [decided today]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### In the Matter of Salvatore J. Marcera, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 843]

— Order of suspension entered *1365pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f). Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley and Whalen, JJ. (Filed Oct. 23, 2013.)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41685 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.
RICKY LEE PIMIENTA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11 -CR- 242 -1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricky Lee Pimienta 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). Pimienta has filed a response and a motion for appointment of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pimienta’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;

* 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 Fif h Circuit 

### FILED August 4, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41685 Document: 00514103009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2017No. 16

- 41685

2 we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral
review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Pimienta ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities here in, Pimienta’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-41685 Document: 00514103009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2017
#### Joffre Pesantes, Respondent, v Komatsu Forklift USA, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[872 NYS2d 504]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Komatsu Forklift USA, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated November 28, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged design defect and failure to warn insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, *824on the law, with costs, and that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged design defect and failure to warn insofar as asserted against it is granted.

In opposition to the prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by the defendant Komatsu Forklift USA, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), the plaintiff raised a new theory of liability. Although “[a] court may properly look beyond the allegations in the complaint and deny summary judgment where a party’s papers in opposition to the motion raise triable issues of fact” *(Gold Connection Discount Jewelers v American Dist. Tel. Co.,*212 AD2d 577, 578 [1995]; *see Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co.,*46 NY2d 276, 281 [1978]; *Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc.,*50 AD3d 734, 736 [2008]), the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the new theory *(see Altinma v East 72nd Garage Corp.,*54 AD3d 978, 982 [2008]; *O’Boy v Motor Coach Indus., Inc.,*39 AD3d 512, 514 [2007]). Speculation and surmise are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see Jaffe v New York City Tr. Auth., 52*AD3d 784 [2008]; *Skouras v New York City Tr. Auth.,*48 AD3d 547, 548 [2008]). Accordingly, that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged design defect and failure to warn insofar as asserted against it should have been granted. Covello, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur. *(See*2007 NY Slip Op 33945(U).]
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

I, Mark W. Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Galena Biopharma, 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;

Dated: April 29, 2016



/s/ Mark W. SchwartzMark W. SchwartzPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------


                            CERTIFICATION 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  of REGENT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on  Form 10-Q for the  period ended  March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on  the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of
the undersigned  does  hereby  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.

Dated:   May 20, 2009

/s/ David A. Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Nelson
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our reports dated (a) August 13, 2004 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of OccuLogix, Inc. (the "Company," formerly Vascular
Sciences Corporation) as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years
in the three year period ended December 31, 2003 and (b) August 13, 2004 with
respect to the financial statements of OccuLogix, L.P. as at December 31, 2003
and 2002 and for the year ended December 31, 2003 and for the period from
July 25, 2002 to December 31, 2002, in the Registration Statement (Amendment
No. 2 to Form S-1 No, 333-118204) and related Prospectus of the Company dated
November 1, 2004.




/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Toronto, Canada
November 1, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4093 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4093

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a 
suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are 
                  eligible for guaranteed assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 2006

  Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of 
   Nebraska, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Salazar, Ms. 
 Stabenow, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bond, 
 Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Biden) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a 
suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are 
                  eligible for guaranteed assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107-171) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.3 

**Consent of Independent Auditor**

The Board of Directors of Boise Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-158737 and 333-150563) on Form S-8 of Boise Inc., theregistration statement (Nos. 333-166390, 333-157881 and 333-155595) on Form S-3 of Boise Inc., and the registration statement (Nos. 333-166926 and 333-166936) on Form S-4 of BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC, of our report datedFebruary 23, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statement of income, capital, and cash flows of Boise Paper Products for the period from January 1, 2008 through February 21, 2008, which report appears in the December 31, 2010annual report on Form 10-K of Boise Inc. and BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boise, Idaho 

March 2, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3804 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3804

  To prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa National 
Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Pu`uhonua o 
   Honaunau National Historical Park, and Pu`ukohola Heiau National 
                             Historic Site.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2006

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa National 
Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Pu`uhonua o 
   Honaunau National Historical Park, and Pu`ukohola Heiau National 
                             Historic Site.

    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 ``Hawaiian Sacred Sites Noise 
Reduction Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AIR TOURS.

    Section 806 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform 
Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 40128 note; 114 Stat. 194) is 
amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``over the rocky 
        mountain national park'' and inserting ``over certain units of 
        national park system'';
            (2) by striking ``Effective'' and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Mountain National Park.--Effective''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) National Park Units in the State of Hawaii.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this Act or section 40126 of title 49, United 
States Code, effective beginning on the date of enactment of the 
Hawaiian Sacred Sites Noise Reduction Act of 2006, no commercial air 
tour operation may be conducted in the airspace over--
            ``(1) the Kalaupapa National Historical Park;
            ``(2) the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park;
            ``(3) the Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park; or
            ``(4) the Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
to carry out this Act and amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```