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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4554

DAVID WAYNE HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-94-26)

Submitted: January 18, 2000

Decided: February 11, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William A. Lascara, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach,

Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert J. Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Wayne Harris appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty-six months of

incarceration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Harris claims on appeal that the district court abused its discretion

because it did not consider the advisory sentencing range suggested

in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The record reflects that

both parties briefed the court on the recommended guideline range

and that the court made explicit reference to the fact that the guideline

range was advisory and non-binding. Thus, we find that the court did

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Harris to the maximum allowable sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1994). See United States

v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). We also conclude that we

need not evaluate whether the district court erred by determining that

Harris embezzled from one of his employers. In light of Harris' complete failure to conform his actions to the terms and conditions of his

supervised release, the litany of Harris' violations, and the court's

explicit statement that its revocation and sentencing decisions were

not based upon its finding that Harris committed a felony, any error

that the court may have made in determining that Harris embezzled

from his employer was harmless and would not merit reversal of the

revocation of his supervised release or his sentence. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52(a).

We affirm the revocation of Harris' supervised release and his sentence. 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

 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2541 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt the conduct 

of silvicultural activities from national pollutant discharge elimination 

system permitting requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2011 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER (for herself, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. MICHAUD, Mrs. 

MCMORRIS RODGERS, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, and Mr. WALDEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt the conduct of silvicultural activities from national 

pollutant discharge elimination system permitting requirements. 

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 ‘‘Silviculture Regulatory 

5 Consistency Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2541 IH

1 SEC. 2. SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 

2 Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

3 Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.— 

6 ‘‘(A) NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR

7 SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.—The Adminis8 trator shall neither require a permit under this 

9 section, nor directly or indirectly require any 

10 State to require a permit under this section, for 

11 a discharge resulting from the conduct of any 

12 silvicultural activity, such as nursery oper13 ations, site preparation, reforestation and sub14 sequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed 

15 burning, pest and fire control, harvesting oper16 ations, surface drainage, or road use, construc17 tion, and maintenance, from which there is run18 off. 

19 ‘‘(B) PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MA20 TERIAL.—Nothing in this paragraph exempts 

21 the conduct of a silvicultural activity resulting 

22 in the discharge of dredged or fill material from 

23 any permitting requirement under section 

24 404.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Hasan Murad Osiris Ahad Beyah, Appellant.

Submitted December 17, 2007;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 9*NY3d 814 (2007)].
#### Jose Luis Farias ALVAREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74273.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, Carlos A. Cruz, Esq., Carlos A. Cruz Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div. Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*944Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Farias Alvarez and Luisa Lorenzana Farias, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal, based on petitioners’ failure to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying United States citizen children.

Petitioners contend that the IJ violated their due process rights in failing to accept new evidence of hardship, namely, a psychologist’s report. Petitioners further contend that the BIA erred in concluding that the IJ did in fact consider the psychologist’s report, and the BIA erred in failing to address the IJ’s finding that the male petitioner failed to demonstrate good moral character.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Petitioners also fail to present a colorable due process claim. The BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to establish hardship is dispositive of the male petitioner’s cancellation of removal application, and it was unnecessary for the BIA to consider the IJ’s good moral character finding. *See INS v. Bagamasbad,*429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976). In addition, petitioners’ argument that the agency did not consider the psychologist’s report is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2442 

To eliminate Federal mandates for traffic sign retroreflectivity, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2011 

Mr. CRAVAACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To eliminate Federal mandates for traffic sign 

retroreflectivity, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural County Mandate 

5 Relief Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL MANDATES FOR TRAF7 FIC SIGN RETROREFLECTIVITY. 

8 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that it should be the 

9 responsibility of State and local governments to ensure 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2442 IH

1 that their traffic signs provide necessary levels of 

2 retroreflectivity. 

3 (b) GENERAL RULE.—The Secretary of Transpor4 tation may not issue, implement, or enforce a minimum 

5 retroreflectivity level standard for a traffic control device 

6 that is applicable to a State or local government. 

7 (c) MODIFICATION OF MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAF8 FIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.— 

9 The Secretary shall modify the Manual on Uniform Traf10 fic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edi11 tion (incorporated by reference in part 655 of title 23, 

12 Code of Federal Regulations), to eliminate the minimum 

13 retroreflectivity level standards for traffic control devices 

14 contained in section 2A.08 of such Manual and the sched15 ule for the implementation of such standards contained 

16 in table I–2 of such Manual. 

17 (d) REPEAL.—Section 406(a) of Public Law 102–388 

18 (106 Stat. 1564) is repealed. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| (logo) WELLS

      FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage, Inc. 

Bank of America Tower

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill

Lynch Trust 2013-C11, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series

2013-C11

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

March 10, 2015

 

 

 

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CALIPERLIFE SCIENCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter F. McAree,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge that:

 

(1)                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

 

(2)                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                          | /s/ PETER F. MCAREE                                                                               |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                                                              |
|                          | Peter F. McAree  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer) |
|                          |                                                                                              |
|                          |                                                                                              |
| Date: November 10,  2008 |                                                                                              |

 

1

----
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER

#### City of Winchester v. Acorn Properties, Inc.

April 27, 2005

Case No. (Law) 04-235

By Judge John E. Wetsel, Jr.

This case came before the Court on April 21, 2005, for trial. Elizabeth M. Muldowney, Esquire, appeared for the Plaintiff; and George L. Moran, Esquire, appeared for the Defendant. The issue to be decided is the extent to which a co-tenant is personally liable for delinquent real estate taxes.

*I. Statement of Material Facts*

The following material facts are not in dispute. The Defendant owns a one half, undivided interest in real property in the City of Winchester, on which the real taxes are delinquent. The City filed a warrant in debt against the Defendant, but not its co-tenants, seeking to collect the entire amount of the delinquent real estate tax from the Defendant personally. The Defendant maintains that it is only personally responsible for payment of half of the taxes, because it has a half interest in the property.

*II Conclusions of Law*

The City may establish due dates for the payment of real estate taxes and promulgate ordinances for the payment of interest, penalties, and collection costs. Virginia Code § 58.1-3919. Winchester has enacted ordinances for the imposition of interest and penalties on delinquent real estate taxes. Winchester City Code §§ 27-2 and 27-3.

*307While the city has a lien for delinquent taxes which it may enforce by sale of the property, Virginia Code § 58.1-3965, it may also file an *in personam*action against an individual taxpayer like the warrant in debt filed in this case to collect the delinquent tax. *See*Virginia Code § 58.1-3953; and *Banks v. County of Norfolk,*191 Va. 463, 62 S.E.2d 46 (1950). However, while the lien for delinquent taxes is an *in rem*remedy for which the entire property is liable, an individual property owner may only be held personally liable for the real estate taxes to the extent of his present interest in the property. *See, e.g., Stark*v. *Norfolk,*183 Va. 282, 287, 32 S.E.2d 59 (1944) (life tenant is liable for tax, but remainderman is not).

The Defendant Acorn is personally liable for one half of the taxes on the subject property, so the City may only recover payment of one half of the delinquent taxes, accrued interest, and penalties in this legal action.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1

## CFR Correction

 In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.170 to 1.300), revised as of April 1, 2017, on page 8, the authority citation for § 1.199-2T is revised to read: “Section 1.199-2T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 199(b)(3).”

[FR Doc. 2017-19396 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

          - [Docket No. DEA-392]

# ACTION:

Notice of application.

# DATES:

Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before November 17, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA  Federal Register  Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 16, 2017, AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC, Highway 50 and Hazel Avenue, Building 05001, Rancho Cordova, California 95670 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of levomethorphan (9210), a basic class of controlled substance in schedule II.

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance as an intermediate in the bulk manufacture of other controlled substances for distribution to its customers.

Dated: September 11, 2017.

Demetra Ashley,

Acting Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2017-19831 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

RICHARD FLOOD,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 EM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
Extension Letter to the Novation Agreement



 Exhibit 10.34 

 

 

  

					
		 	EXTENSION LETTER	  	 125 East John Carpenter Freeway
 Irving, TX 75062 - 2324
 P.O. Box 140909

Irving, TX 75014-0909

972.581.5000



October 21, 2010 
 Mr. Jim Beyer 

Vice President, Strategic Accounts 
 Masimo
Corporation 
 40 Parker 
 Irvine, CA
92618 
  

	RE:	Extension of Agreement MS50662, MASIMO PULSE OXIMETRY 

 Dear Mr. Beyer: 
 Masimo Corporation and Novation, LLC agree to extend the above-referenced
Agreement through December 31, 2011. All other terms and conditions of the current Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 
 Please
indicate your acceptance of this extension to the Agreement by signing in the space provided below, and returning one signed original to my attention at your earliest convenience. A copy is provided for your records. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Cathy A. Denning

	Cathy A. Denning, RN, MSN
	Vice President, Sourcing Operations
	Medical, Surgical, Distribution and Logistics

 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED this 16th day of November, 2010. 
 Masimo Corporation 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Jim Beyer



			
	Printed Name:	 	 Jim Beyer



			
	Title:	 	 VP Corporate Sales
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2316

Lower Tribunal No. 2020CA-002532-0000-00

_____________________________

CARLOS GOFFI,

Appellant, 

v.

AP FOREST HILLS, LLC and ANCHOR POINT, LLC,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

William D. Sites, Judge.

January 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Robin F. Hazel, of Hazel Law, P.A., Hollywood, and Thomas Allison, of Thomas 

C. Allison, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Jamie Billotte Moses, David Cannella, Suzanne E. Gilbert, and Eric C. Reed, of 

Holland & Knight LLP, Orlando, for Appellees.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 25, 2013

h0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

145316(30)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145316

COA: 306256

Wayne CC: 06

- 006726

- FC

MICHAEL TERRENCE CANNON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 29,

2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PETER JAMES SOROKAPUT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 23 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.