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

No. 10-50208

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant'U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Rios-Martinez (Rios) was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 46 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Rios filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Rios challenges only the sentence imposed. He maintains that his *898within-guidelines sentence should not be presumed reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and is thus flawed under *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 109-10, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). He acknowledges, however, that we have rejected this argument. *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009).

Rios also argues that the 46-month sentence imposed was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He points out his difficult childhood and his problem with alcohol. He also maintains that the prior conviction that resulted in a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) was too temporally remote to warrant such an increase in his sentencing range.

Rios’s arguments concerning the district court’s weighing of his mitigating sentencing factors amount to a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of these factors and the appropriateness of his within-guidelines sentence. This disagreement does not suffice to show error in connection with his sentence. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). Rios has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence, nor has he shown that his sentence was unreasonable. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006); *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Dye Addresses PNWA Annual Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RJVDZuPsKI\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-addresses-pnwa-annual-meeting\/\">Commissioner Dye Addresses PNWA Annual Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-addresses-pnwa-annual-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=RJVDZuPsKI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Addresses PNWA Annual Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"RJVDZuPsKI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
TAXPAYER IDENTIFYING NUMBER

FORM

Organization Number (if known):____________ Date:_________________________

Name of Firm:______________________________________________________________

Street Address:______________________________________________________________

City:_________________________ State:_______ Zip:__________

Phone:__________________Fax:__________________

E-Mail: 

Taxpayer Identifying Number:____________________________

(The TIN for an individual may be individual’s social security number.)

To be Completed by Person Preparing this Form

Name of Person Completing Form:______________________________________________

Phone Number:__________________

Privacy Act Notice: The Taxpayer Identifying Number (“TIN”) is required by the Debt Collection

 Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. §7701(c) and (d). The TIN will be used

 for the purpose of collecting and reporting on any delinquent amounts owed

 the Commission.
**Exhibit      32.1**

|                                                             |                                   |                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                              |                           |
| Dated:              September              28,              2006 | By:                          | /s/ *Li              Xia WANG* |
|                                                             | Li              Xia WANG               |
|                                                             | Chief                Executive Officer |
|                                                             |                                 |                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                                        |                            |                         |
| Dated:              September              28,              2006 | By:                        | /s/ *Peter              MAK* |
|                                                             | Peter              MAK               |
|                                                             | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
I, Anthony N. Renzi, 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 RAMP  Series  2006-NC3  Trust  (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 servicers
     and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing
     the servicer compliance  statements required in this report under Item 1123
     of  Regulation  AB, and except as  disclosed  in the  Exchange Act periodic
     reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
     agreements 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: U.S. Bank National Association. Date: March 26, 2007

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
     --------------------
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director


<
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION BY 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 Edison Schools Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H.
Christopher Whittle, 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 to my 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 issuer.



November 14, 2002                           /s/ H. Christopher Whittle
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            H. Christopher Whittle
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### David YURIANTO; Diana Wati, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75253.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 29, 2008.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Yurianto and his wife, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Yurianto suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. *See id.*at 1016-18. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Yurianto failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. *See id.*at 1018.

Because Yurianto failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Yurianto is not entitled to CAT relief. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24181]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-17-050]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  November 8, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1387-1391 (Preliminary) (Polyethylene 
Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and 
Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determinations on November 13, 2017; views of the Commission are 
currently scheduled to be completed and filed on November 20, 2017.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 1, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-24181 Filed 11-2-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Dye Votes Against Final Rules Concerning OTIs","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rdmzRqa0Ae\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-votes-against-final-rules-concerning-otis\/\">Commissioner Dye Votes Against Final Rules Concerning OTIs<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-votes-against-final-rules-concerning-otis\/embed\/#?secret=rdmzRqa0Ae\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Votes Against Final Rules Concerning OTIs” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"rdmzRqa0Ae\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Meghan Leanne Garza, * From the 161st District Court

 of Ector County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-16-0294-CR.

Vs. No. 11-16-00146-CR * December 15, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7935

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOYLE RAY MORGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (1:01-cr-00052-11; 1:04-cv-00258)

Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doyle Ray Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Doyle Ray Morgan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morgan has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner William P. Doyle welcomes his new Counsel Patrick Parsons","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WLTkyWruVE\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-william-p-doyle-welcomes-his-new-counsel-patrick-parsons\/\">Commissioner William P. Doyle welcomes his new Counsel Patrick Parsons<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-william-p-doyle-welcomes-his-new-counsel-patrick-parsons\/embed\/#?secret=WLTkyWruVE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner William P. Doyle welcomes his new Counsel Patrick Parsons” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"WLTkyWruVE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}