alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RUDYARD C. WILLIAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10312

D.C. No. 4:07-CR-01009-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Rudyard C. Williams appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 120-month

sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a

drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to

FILED

MAY 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10312

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a brief

stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. Williams has filed pro se supplemental briefs and the

appellee has filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

We grant the government’s motion to strike factual allegations in William’s

pro se reply brief that are not part of the district court record. See Lowry v.

Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-26 (9th Cir. 2003).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.
II 

★(Star Print)

Calendar No. 258 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2939 

To amend title 31, United States Code to require an audit of the Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve 

banks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2010 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code to require an audit 

of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

and the Federal reserve banks, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUDIT OF AND REPORT ON THE FEDERAL RE4 SERVE SYSTEM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 714(b) of title 31, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking all after ‘‘shall audit 

7 an agency’’ and inserting a period. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 2939 PCS1S 

1 (b) AUDIT.—Section 714 of title 31, United States 

2 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

3 subsection: 

4 ‘‘(f) AUDIT OF AND REPORT ON THE FEDERAL RE5 SERVE SYSTEM.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General 

7 shall complete an audit of the Board of Governors 

8 of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal re9 serve banks under subsection (b) before the end of 

10 2010. 

11 ‘‘(2) REPORT REQUIRED.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A report on the audit 

13 referred to in paragraph (1) shall be— 

14 ‘‘(i) submitted by the Comptroller 

15 General to the Congress before the end of 

16 the 90-day period beginning on the date on 

17 which such audit is completed; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) made available to— 

19 ‘‘(I) the Speaker of the House of 

20 Representatives; 

21 ‘‘(II) the majority leader and the 

22 minority leader of the House of Rep23 resentatives; 

24 ‘‘(III) the majority leader and 

25 the minority leader of the Senate; 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 2939 PCS1S 

1 ‘‘(IV) the Chairperson and Rank2 ing Member of the committee and 

3 each subcommittee of jurisdiction in 

4 the House of Representatives and the 

5 Senate; and 

6 ‘‘(V) any other Member of Con7 gress who requests it. 

8 ‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—The report under sub9 paragraph (A) shall include a detailed descrip10 tion of the findings and conclusion of the 

11 Comptroller General with respect to the audit 

12 that is the subject of the report, together with 

13 such recommendations for legislative action as 

14 the Comptroller General may determine to be 

15 appropriate.’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 258 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2939 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code to require 

banks, and for other purposes. eral Reserve System and the Federal reserve an audit of the Board of Governors of the FedJANUARY 21, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1





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 International Packaging and Logistics
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/  Steve
Westlund


Steve
Westlund


Chief
Executive Officer, President


and
Director





November
19, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel Robles GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-0841-CR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 25, 2007.

Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Joshua A. Levine and Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorneys on the brief), New York, N.Y., for Appellee.

David Samel, New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellant.

Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, and DAVID G. TRAGER,* District Judge.

The Honorable David G. Trager, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

On consideration whereof, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the order of the district court, entered January 18, 2006, and the judgment of conviction, entered on April 8, 2003, be and hereby are AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellee (“Guzman”) appeals an order, entered January 18, 2006, denying his application for resentencing pursuant to *United States v. Crosby,*397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005). Guzman argues that the decision not to resentence him resulted in a sentence that was unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the proceedings below, and the specification of issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s sentence for “reasonableness,” an inquiry that includes both procedural reasonableness and substantive reasonableness. *Id.*at 114-15. Guzman has not challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. In our review for substantive reasonableness we ask “whether the length of the sentence is reasonable in light of the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” *United States v.*

*1001
      *Rattoballi,*452 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2006). Here, given the circumstances of this case, we do not find a sentence at the lower end of the Guidelines range to be substantively unreasonable.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court and the judgment of conviction are hereby AF' FIRMED.
**Fire Management Administration**

**For Agency Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

Checklist #2 - Fire Management Administration 	1	Revised June 2021

# image1.png
National Fire and Aviation Executive Board 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Fire Management and Human Resources 

From: National Fire and Aviation Executive Board 

Date: May 17, 2006 

Subject: IFPM Update 

The National Fire and Aviation Executive Board (NFAEB) wishes to commend employees, 

their supervisors and managers, and their supporting human resource offices for making 

significant progress in the implementation of the Interagency Fire Program Management 

Standards Qualification and Guide (IFPM Standard). However, employees and their 

supervisors must remain focused on the October 1, 2009 deadline. 

Human resources staffs have made considerable headway in notifying employees regarding 

their qualification status and some agencies are close to completion. We would like to remind 

all Fire Management Officers or others who supervise employees occupying IFPM positions 

that the submission of incumbent declarations to your HR office is required. Human 

resources staffs are reminded that they need to provide a completed Notification of 

Qualification Status to all affected employees, if they have not already done so. 

Once again, we would like to reiterate what we said earlier regarding qualification 

determinations. A determination by HR that an employee does not meet the IFPM minimum 

qualification standards does not mean the employee is presently unqualified to perform their 

current job. Employees are qualified for their present positions because they were required to 

meet Office of Personnel Management (OPM) qualification standards at the time they were 

placed in their current position. 

For employees who have received notification from HR indicating that the minimum 

qualification standards have not been met, the employee and supervisor should utilize an 

Individual Development Plan (IDP) that identifies the appropriate education, training, position 

performance assignments, and specialized experience needed. These plans should be 

reviewed and updated at least once a year. 

Once an employee meets all Minimum Qualification Standards (MQS) they are required to 

submit a new Incumbent Declaration with supporting documentation (IQCS Master Record, 

IFPM Update Page 1 of 2 
College Transcripts, etc.) to their servicing HR office. Upon review of the new Incumbent 

Declaration, they will be notified by their HR office. 

The NFAEB fully supports and remains committed to the implementation the IFPM Standard 

and will continue to be responsible for decisions and implementation actions. Once again, 

thank you for supporting an initiative so critical to the development of our fire management 

workforce. If you have any questions please contact your IFPM fire management 

representative or your human resources management representative. 

IFPM Update Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2856 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2856

   To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing 
   Understanding to be considered an international agreement for the 
     purposes of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
                    Conservation and Management Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2009

  Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing 
   Understanding to be considered an international agreement for the 
     purposes of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
                    Conservation and Management Act.

    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 ``International Fisheries Agreement 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES AGREEMENTS.

    Section 304(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(B) The United States-Canada Transboundary Resource 
        Sharing Understanding and other similar Understandings, and 
        decisions made under those Understandings, shall be taken into 
        account for purposes of paragraph (4)(A)(i). Paragraph 
        (4)(A)(ii) shall not apply to stocks covered by such 
        Understandings. Notwithstanding section 302(h)(6) of this 
        title, fishing level recommendations regarding rebuilding in 
        any given year for such stocks may be exceeded as long as the 
        fishing mortality level allows for progress toward rebuilding 
        affected fish stocks, and overfishing is ended immediately 
        according to the procedures set forth in this subsection.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with respect to 
fishing years beginning after April 30, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
Unit Agency Administrator	Checklist #01

**Unit Agency Administrator	Checklist #01**

**1-1		Revised 02/01/2014**

							1-		       	                            2003

**1-1		Revised 2014**
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personaI privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders, Special Emphasis Panel; Temporal Bone.
    Date: July 2, 2009.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Shiguang Yang, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities NIDCD, NIH, 6120 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12892 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Darlene M. Lay :

:

v. :

: County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau :

:

v. :

:

Daniel Bolla, as Executor of the :

Estate of Lawrence C. Bolla, : No. 652 C.D. 2021

Appellant :

:

:

In Re: :

: Darlene M. Lay :

:

v. :

: County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau :

:

v. :

:

Daniel Bolla, as Executor of the :

Estate of Lawrence C. Bolla :

: Appeal of: County of Erie Tax : No. 653 C.D. 2021

Claim Bureau : Submitted: February 7, 2022

AMENDING O RDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2022, the tenth sentence of the first

full paragraph of the eighth page of the slip memorandum opinion in the above

matter, filed March 2, 2022, is amended to reflect the following correction (deletingtext inadvertently included in a quotation from the trial court’s Opinion of the Court

filed May 12, 2021) :

This matter hinges, however, on the ad ditional

requirement contained in Section 601(a)(3) of the RETSL

that the Bureau personally serve an “owner

- occupant” of

a property subject to an upset sale with notice of that sale.

The RETSL defines “owner

- occupant” as “the owner of a

property which has improvements constructed thereon and

for which the annual tax bill is mailed to an owner residing

at the same address as that of the property.” Section 102

of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.102. As the trial court

observed, the plain text of this definition “contains four

necessary elements: (1) an owner

- occupant must be an

owner of the property; (2) the property must have

improvements constructed thereon; (3) the annual tax bill

for the that property must be mailed to an owner at the

property ; and (4) such owner referenced in prong three

must reside at the property.” Trial Court Opinion at 29;

see also Commonwealth v. Giulian , 141 A.3d 1262, 1267

(Pa. 2016) (“A statute’s plain language generally provides

the best indication of legislative intent.”).

___________________________ _______ C HRISTINE F IZZANO C ANNON , Judge
#### Robert Henry, Appellant, v Pedro L. Peguero et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 1, 2010;

decided January 6, 2011

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 14, 2010 dismissal order denied (see 15 NY3d 820 [2010]).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2746 

To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect to certain financial 

entities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2009 

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect 

to certain financial entities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big to Fail, Too 

5 Big to Exist Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INSTITUTIONS THAT 

7 ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later 

9 than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

10 Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2746 IS

1 of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, 

2 and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are 

3 too big to fail (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big 

4 to Fail List’’). 

5 SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin7 ning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

8 Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included 

9 on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would 

10 no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States 

11 or global economy without a taxpayer bailout. 

12 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

13 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Too Big to Fail’’ 

14 means any entity that has grown so large that its failure 

15 would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either 

16 the financial system or the United States economy without 

17 substantial Government assistance. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55257-55258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Information Card Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 25, 2009, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act'') Information Card Foundation 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Carrillon 
Information Security, Vaudreuil-Dorion, Quebec, Canada; iMagic 
Software, Solvang, CA; Kick Willemse (individual member), Haanlem, The 
Netherlands; and John Bradley (individual member), Santiago, Chile have 
been added as parties to this venture. Also, Gemalto, Austin, TX has 
withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to

[[Page 55258]]

Section 6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 6, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on August 21, 2009 (74 FR 42330).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-25625 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
EXHIBIT 14

WARREN RESOURCES, INC.

CODE OF ETHICS

for

SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

General Philosophy

The honesty, integrity and sound judgment of Warren Resources, Inc.'s ("Warren") Senior Financial Officers is fundamental to our reputation and success.
While all directors, officers and employees are required to adhere to Warren's Code of Conduct, the professional and ethical conduct of the Senior Financial Officers is essential to the proper
functioning and success of Warren.

Applicability

This Code of Ethics shall apply to Warren's Senior Financial Officers. "Senior Financial Officers" shall include the principal executive officer, the principal
financial officer, the principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, including Warren's President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Vice
PresidentAccounting and Controller. In the event of the change of an officer's title or designation as a principal officer, or the addition of an officer to the foregoing definition, any
officer performing a similar function shall be included.

Standards of Conduct

To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Senior Financial Officers shall:



---

All
Senior Financial Officers are expected to adhere to both the Warren Resources, Inc.'s Code of Conduct and this Code of Ethics. Any violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to
appropriate
discipline, up to and including dismissal from the Company and prosecution under the law. The board of directors shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve any deviation or
waiver from this Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers. Any change in or waiver from and the grounds

1

---

for such change or waiver of this Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers shall be promptly disclosed through a filing with the Commission on Form 8-K.

2

---
# Drill #16

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Smokejumper Response Procedures (Suit-up, Getaway and En Route Protocol)		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Drill #16

&P	

&P	

# Code Page

# image1.png