alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leobardo Vasquez RUIZ, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Bello Calvario, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50019.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 17, 2011.

Bobby Chen, Special Assistant U.S., United States Attorney Office, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Joshua Robbins, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*589MEMORANDUM **

Leobardo Vasquez Ruiz appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vasquez Ruiz contends the district court procedurally erred by: (1) treating the guidelines as presumptively reasonable; (2) failing to adequately explain the sentence or address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and (3) failing to respond to Vasquez Ruiz’s non-frivolous mitigation arguments. The record reflects that the district court did not treat the Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively appropriate, adequately explained the sentence, sufficiently addressed the section 3553(a) factors, and listened to the parties’ arguments but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one imposed. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Vasquez Ruiz also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because of the district court’s failure to meaningfully consider the section 3553(a) factors, as well as the staleness and minor nature of two of his prior convictions. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors, Vasquez Ruiz’s sentence is substantively reasonable. *See id.*at 991— 93.

Finally, we reject Vasquez Ruiz’s invitation to call for an en banc hearing on this case because there is no intra-circuit conflict and he has failed to demonstrate that *United States v. Hayden,*255 F.3d 768 (9th Cir.2001), was wrongly decided. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 35(a).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Montague, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 449]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered July 31, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly determined that Natalie Tears was not an accomplice as a matter of law and properly left it for the jury to determine whether Tears was an accomplice *(see,*CPL 60.22; *People v Vataj,*69 NY2d 985; *People v Basch,*36 NY2d 154; *People v Young,*235 AD2d 441).

The accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*CPL 60.22; *People v Breland,*83 NY2d 286; *People v Moses,*63 NY2d 299).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see, People v Ashner,*190 AD2d 238). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
-  June 10, 2024  FMC May Meeting Focused on Agency Outreach and Licensing Efforts  
Demand for cargo and passenger ocean transportation services remains strong post-pandemic and the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) used the open session of its May 2024 meeting to highlight how agency licensing and outreach programs improve... 
  Categories: Meeting Summary, Press Releases   
    -  January 12, 2024  FMC Announces Hearing on Shipping Conditions in the Red Sea  
The Federal Maritime Commission will hold an informal public hearing on February 7, 2024, to examine how conditions in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden regions are impacting commercial shipping and global supply chains.... 
  Categories: Meeting Summary, News Articles   
    -  May 3, 2023  FMC Meeting Covers Enforcement Activity, OSRA Implementation, and MTDI  
The new regionally based structure for the Federal Maritime Commission investigatory program was unveiled at today’s meeting of the Commission where enforcement activity, continued progress in implementing the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA), and the... 
  Categories: Meeting Summary, News Articles   
    -  September 22, 2022  FMC Meeting Focuses on OSRA Implementation & Data Initiative  
Posted September 22, 2022 The Federal Maritime Commission was briefed at its September meeting, held Wednesday, on progress implementing the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA) and the findings of the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI). Commissioner Carl W.... 
  Categories: Commission Meeting Agenda, Meeting Summary
---

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

I, Bruce Nicol, certify that:

1.          
  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Augusta Resource Corporation;

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;

3.          
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
  included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of,
  and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.          
  The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
  Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

(a)          
  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
  controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
  material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
  period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          
  Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
  and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
  disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
  report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          
  Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over
  financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
  the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          
  The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
  our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
  the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board
  of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          
  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
  adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
  report financial information; and

(b)          
  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
  who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial
  reporting.

|Date: March 1, 2007 | By: | /s/ Bruce
      Nicol  
|------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                    |     |                        
|                    |     | Bruce Nicol            
|                    |     | Chief Financial Officer

---
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > Site Policies

Site Policies Privacy and Security Notice
ISIR/Breach Notification [PDF, 229 KB]



Accessibility Notice



Plain Language Act of 2010



Digital Strategy Initiative Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3252 

To authorize the President of the United States to agree to an amendment 

to the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the 

establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and 

a North American Development Bank. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2009 

Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. CUELLAR, and Mr. REYES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President of the United States to agree 

to an amendment to the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3252 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

2 THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION 

3 AGREEMENT. 

4 Section 545 of the North American Free Trade 

5 Agreement Implementation Act (22 U.S.C. 290m–4) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and in8 serting a semicolon; 

9 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and 

10 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(3) expand the purposes and functions of the 

13 Border Environment Cooperation Commission and 

14 the North American Development Bank to allow the 

15 Commission to certify, and the Bank to finance, any 

16 infrastructure in the border region.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated

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 Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Caroline M. Loewy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Caroline M. Loewy  
|Caroline M. Loewy      
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 9, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abednego ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20476

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

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

Lee Wilson, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Abednego Espinosa pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit hostage taking. The *334district court sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The district court also ordered that Espinosa pay, jointly and severably with his codefendants, $9,000 in restitution. Espinosa appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it applied a six-level guidelines enhancement based on its finding that a ransom demand was made and a two-level guidelines enhancement based on its finding that firearms were used during the offense.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that the demanding of a ransom was the purpose of the offense and was a reasonably foreseeable act of one of Espinosa’s coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, because these findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B); *United States v. Solis,*299 F.3d 420, 461-62 (5th Cir.2002). The district court also did not clearly err in finding that Espinosa’s co-conspirators pointed pistols at the victims or err in determining that such conduct qualified as “otherwise us[ing]” firearms during the offense conduct. U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3), § 2A4.1, comment, (n.2); *United States v. Dunigan,*555 F.3d 501, 504-06 (5th Cir.2009). Further, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the use of firearms was reasonably foreseeable to Espinosa, as Espinosa viewed his coconspirators in possession of the pistols at the time of the offense. *See Solis,*299 F.3d at 462.

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 *334the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Section
906 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer




Each
of Yahia Gawad, Chief Executive Officer, and James Essex, Chief Financial
Officer, of CardioGenics Holdings Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”)
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:




(1)
The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010
(“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.





/s/
      Yahia Gawad
            
            /s/
      James EssexName:
      Yahia Gawad
            
            Name:
      James EssexTitle:  Chief
      Executive Officer
            
            Title:
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      September 14, 2010
#### Gregory Sylvester RIDEAU, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry SMALL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-56216.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., Calipat-ria, CA, pro se.

*166Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and for failure to exhaust, *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied Rideau a therapeutic medical diet beneficial for his heart condition because an inmate’s disagreement with his physicians or prison officials regarding the course of treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied Rideau single cell status and other treatment for his sleep disorder because, as he appears to concede on appeal, Rideau did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to this claim before filing suit. *See McKinney v. Carey,*311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice where prisoner does not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

Rideau’s remaining contentions, including those concerning a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that he tried to allege, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
JOHNS. HOOKS AND HIS WIFE, NATASHA R. HOOKS NO. 2022 CW 1207 VERSUS GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALVIN &JOHN TRUCKING, LLC, AND SEAN DAVIS 

### JANUARY 17, 2023
In Re: Granite State Insurance Company and Alvin and John Trucking, LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 20170000053. 

### BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND 

### HESTER, JJ. WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in 

### Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are not met. 

### WRC CHH Theriot, J., concurs andwould deny the writ.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LINDSEY E. STEW

AR T; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF EDUC A TION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-57199 D.C . No. 3:07-c v-00971-M M AW VG M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Lindse y E. Ste w art, Ja son P. Ste wart, a nd C a itlin N. Stewart a

ppe a l pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting de fe nda nts’ re que st to wa ive furthe r proc e e dings in c o nne c t ion with the ir m otion for a ve x at ious litiga

n t de te rm ination, 

# FIL ED JUL 3 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).tre ating them otion a s withdra wn, a nd c losing the

c a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. M.M. v . Lafay e tteSc h. Dist. , 681 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion be c a

use it re a sona

bly tre ate d de fe nda n ts’ re que st a s a m otion to withdra w, a nd its de c ision re sulte d in no ha rm or pre judic e to Lindse y

E. Ste wart, give n tha

t the orde r de c la

ring he r a ve xatious litiga nt ha d be e n va c ate d. Se e Latshaw v . Traine r W

ortham & C o., Inc . , 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th C ir. 2006) (unde r the a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd, a distric t c ourt c an be re ve rse d only

if it doe s not a

pply the c orre c t la

w , re sts its de c ision on a c le arly e rrone ous finding of mate ria l fa c t, or a pplie s the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd in a m anne r that re sults in a

n a buse of disc re tion); s e e also Ste w art v . C a l. De p’t of Educ . , No. 10-55282, 493 F. App’ x889 (9th C ir. Se p. 20, 2012). To the e xte nt tha

t a ppe lla nts c ha lle nge the re

je c tion of the ir brie f opposing de fe nda n t’ s re que st, the distric t

c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion be c a

u se , a s it e xpla ine d, the c a se wa s c lose d, a nd the ve xatious litiga

nt orde r a nd injunc tion ha d be e n va c ate d. Se e id. W e re je c t a ppe lla n t s’ c onte ntions tha

t the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to c onduc t a n e v ide ntia

ry he aring, a

nd tha t the distric t c ourt judgewa s bia se d a ga inst the m . 1 2 - 5 7 1 9 9 2De fe nda nts’ re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on M ay 16, 2013, is gra

nte d. Appe lla nts’ re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on Nove m be r 26, 2013, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 7 1 9 9 3
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northport Investments,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December
  31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Stephen Dadson, Chief Executive Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Stephen Dadson
  Stephen Dadson
  Chief Executive Officer 
  February 10, 2004

---