alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Billy Jerod MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30721

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Billy Jerod Mitchell, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Billy Jerod Mitchell, federal prisoner # 10928-035, is serving a total term of 200 months of imprisonment for various drug related offenses, including conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base and phencyclidine. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the Sentencing Guideline for crack cocaine offenses. He argues that the district court erred in determining that he, as a career offender, was ineligible for relief. Mitchell also asks this court to remand his case to the district court so it may resentence him under the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which became effective during the pendency of the instant appeal. *See*Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010).

Section 3582(c)(2) “permits a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, if such a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” *United States v. GonzalezBalderas,*105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997) (citing § 3582(c)(2)). We review a district court’s denial of a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010).

Mitchell has not shown that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for a reduction of sentence because he was sentenced as a career offender. *See United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir.2009). Mitchell argues that his sentence was not based on a guidelines range derived from his status as a career offender because the district court granted him a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. However, his argument lacks merit. Section 3582(c)(2)’s “phrase ‘based on a sentencing range’ straightforwardly aligns with the familiar sentencing practice of initially calculating a base range and then considering grounds for departing from it.” *United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578 (5th Cir.2010).

*366Mitchell’s request for a remand is denied. The FSA does not apply retroactively. *United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011).

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 Or. R. 47.5.4.
#### Hector Guillermo MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70276.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Guillermo Mendez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to *231reopen, *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez-Rodriguez’ motion to reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that Mendez-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought); *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3296 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3296

         To suspend temporarily the duty on cellulose nitrate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2009

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on cellulose nitrate.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CELLULOSE NITRATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 6 the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902._._        Nitrocellulose      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (CAS No. 9004-70-                                                  31/2012.......
                        0) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3912.20.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Raghunath Reddy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|March 25, 2009 | /s/ Raghunath Reddy    
|-------------- | -----------------------
|               |                        
|               | Raghunath Reddy        
|               | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 99.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
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 Agile Software Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Bryan D. Stolle, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              
|--------------
|March 14, 2003
|
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re:   Soundview Home Loan Trust, Series 2006-1
            Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-1

      I, Robert McGinnis, certify that:

      l. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period included in the year covered by
this report in Form 10-K of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-1 (the "Exchange Act
periodic reports");

      2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do 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;

      3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the Servicer has fulfilled each of its
obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and

      5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Litton Loan
Servicing LP and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

                                        FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORP.

                                        By: /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Robert McGinnis
                                        Title: President
                                        Date: March 30, 2007
#### Ezequiez MEJIA-ALVAREZ, aka Ezequiel Mejia-Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71629.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 12, 2011.*

Filed March 17, 2011.

Deitz P. Lefort, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ezequiez Mejia-Alvarez (“Mejia”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to re*588open. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *I.N.S. v. Rios-Pineda,*471 U.S. 444, 449, 105 S.Ct. 2098, 85 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, and we deny the petition.

The BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for relief. *I.N.S. v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. *See Singh-Kaur v. I.N.S.,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia has not suffered and is not expected to suffer mistreatment that rises to the level of persecution. *See Lim v. I.N.S.,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). The Mexican officials’ statements that Mejia lacked proper identification documents and was ineligible to receive social security and medical benefits did not rise to the level of persecution nor establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Ghaly v. I.N.S.,*58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (persecution is an “extreme concept”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mejia did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding. *See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006). Similarly, the BIA did not err in concluding that Mejia had failed to demonstrate that he would likely be tortured in Mexico, and that he therefore did not establish eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. *See Villegas v. Mulcasey,*523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008) (torture refers to the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering); *Eneh v. Holder,*601 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION DENIED.

**

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

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-683 (Fourth Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16223) and determined on July 7, 2017 that it would conduct an expedited review (82 FR 37237, August 9, 2017).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on October 19, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4735 (October 2017), entitled                     *Fresh Garlic from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-683 (Fourth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 19, 2017.

Lisa R. Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2017-23040 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
 
 
 The undersigned, Michael J. Lewis, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Collectors Universe, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Quarterly Report"), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
    
 Date: February 17, 2004

/s/ MICHAEL J. LEWISMichael J. LewisChief Financial OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1425

_____________________________

ZACHARY TAYLOR WOOD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.

Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.

January 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio BERMUDEZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40563

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Bermudez-Pineda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Bermudez-Pineda has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust
            2006-2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do 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;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

   Date: March 26, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             ----------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAM Holdings Ltd. (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Edward U. Gilpin, as Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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 Company.

|                      |                              | 
|--------------------- | ---------------------------- | 
|/S/ Edward
 U. Gilpin |                              | 
|                     
|Name:                 | Edward U.
 Gilpin            | 
|Title:                | Principal
 Financial Officer | 
|Date:                 | April 15, 2009               | 

---