alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman Leon BURGESS, a.k.a. Shine, a.k.a. Leon Burgess, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-14425

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 21, 2008.

Norman Leon Burgess, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

Linda Julin McNamara, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In *United States v. Brazel et al.,*102 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir.1997), we affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and for use of a firearm during the commission of a drag trafficking crime.1 In *United States v. Burgess (Burgess I),*190 F.3d 540 (11th Cir.1999) (unpublished), we affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his life sentence pursuant to Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On August 15, 2007, appellant again moved the district court under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his life sentence pursuant to Amendment 505, and again the court denied his motion. He now appeals its ruling, contending that the court, in denying his first § 3582(c)(2) motion, failed to take into consideration the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the Supreme Court’s holding in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

*Booker*is inapplicable in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.2 As for appellant’s § 3582(c)(2) argument, it is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Under that doctrine, “the trial court and appellate courts are bound by any findings of fact or conclusions of law made by the appellate court in a prior appeal of the case at issue.” *United States v. Burns,*662 F.2d 1378, 1383-84 (11th Cir.1981) (applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to this Court’s conclusion, on prior appeal, that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants’ guilty verdict). The doctrine precludes courts from revisiting issues that were decided both explicitly and by necessary implication in a prior appeal. *See Luckey v. Miller,*929 F.2d 618, 621 (11th Cir.1991) (civil context). Implicit in *Burgess I*panel’s disposition is the holding that the district court properly took the § 3553(a) factors into account in denying appellant § 3582(c)(2) relief.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and a consecutive five-year prison sentence on the firearm count.

2

. *Booker*is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions, and cannot serve as the basis for reducing a prisoner's sentence under § 3582(c)(2). *United States v. Moreno,*421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2005).
Exhibit 32.2

                    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 BF Acquisition
Group  III,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for  the  period
ending  July  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer 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  the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 20, 2004


                                           /s/ William Colucci
                                           ------------------------------
                                           William Colucci,
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24531]

[[Page 52045]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on November 16, 
2017.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
* * * * *

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-24531 Filed 11-7-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
```
#### Jose Santos OROZCO-OROZCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74516.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Jose Santos Orozco-Orozco, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Jesse M. Bless, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as both untimely and barred by numerical limitations.

*751We review the denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing petitioner’s “motion for administrative closure” as a motion to reopen. In this motion, petitioner sought administrative closure to pursue possible amnesty relief should Congress pass amnesty legislation. The motion was filed after a final administrative order of removal had been entered, thus, there were no administrative proceedings to close. In addition, the regulations provide that a party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings and the motion to reopen must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. Petitioner’s final administrative order of removal was entered on July 30, 2004. Petitioner’s second motion to reopen was filed on August 27, 2007, more than 90 days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. *See Garcia v. Ashcroft,*368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 5.4**

**CONSENT OF JOHN SHILLABEER, P. Eng.**

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for theyear ended December 31, 2006 (the “Annual Report”) of New Gold Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

I hereby consent to the references to my name under the heading “Interest of Experts” in the Company’s Annual Information Form and to all other references to my name included or incorporated byreference in the Annual Report. 

/s/    JohnShillabeer                                

John Shillabeer 

Title: Professional Engineer 

April 2, 2007
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Managers 

DB Commodity Services LLC: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-132484) of PowerShares DB G10 Currency Harvest Fund and Subsidiary of our reports dated March 9, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition, including theconsolidated schedules of investments of PowerShares DB G10 Currency Harvest Fund and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income and expenses, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cashflows for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2008, and the period from September 15, 2006 (commencement of investment operations) to December 31, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PowerShares DB G10 Currency Harvest Fund and Subsidiary. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

New York, New York 

March 9, 2009
{"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":"Cordero Urges Ocean Carriers to Accept Obvious Path to VGM Compliance","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fKdMpLNTOt\"><a href=\"\/cordero-urges-ocean-carriers-to-accept-obvious-path-to-vgm-compliance\/\">Cordero Urges Ocean Carriers to Accept Obvious Path to VGM Compliance<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/cordero-urges-ocean-carriers-to-accept-obvious-path-to-vgm-compliance\/embed\/#?secret=fKdMpLNTOt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Cordero Urges Ocean Carriers to Accept Obvious Path to VGM Compliance” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"fKdMpLNTOt\" 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"}
Order entered July 31, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00174

- CR

JON MATTHEW WOODLAND , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 81351

- 2018



### O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal. On July 26, 2019, the trial court filed findings of fact. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that (1) appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal; (2) appellant, who is indigent, is represented by appointed counsel Stephanie Hudson; and (3) counsel has not abandoned the appeal and will have a brief filed by August 14 , 2019.
We ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before August 14 , 2019

. We DIR ECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Jennifer Edgeworth
, Presiding Judge, 219th Judicial District Court ; Stephanie Hudson ; and to the Collin County District Attorney

.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
<PAGE>

        EXHIBIT 12 -- COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
             (COMBINED WITH 50%-OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   2001        2000
        NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30 (In millions)               -----       -----
<S>                                                                <C>         <C>
Income from continuing operations...........................       $ 119       $ 106
Add Interest................................................          82         101
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor......          10          13
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income..............          85          78
  Amortization of interest capitalized......................           1          --
                                                                   -----       -----
     Earnings as defined....................................       $ 297       $ 298
                                                                   =====       =====
Interest....................................................       $  82       $ 101
Interest capitalized........................................           3           5
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor........          10          13
                                                                   -----       -----
     Fixed charges as defined...............................       $  95       $ 119
                                                                   =====       =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................        3.13        2.50
                                                                   =====       =====
</Table>

                                        24
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report of SFBC International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Jeffrey P. McMullen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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/ JEFFREYP. MCMULLEN*               | 
| | Jeffrey P. McMullen                   | 
| | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|

Date: August 14, 2006



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{"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":"Acting Chairman Michael A. Khouri\u2019s Statement to the Cotton Club","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SSkzd9jBx6\"><a href=\"\/acting-chairman-michael-a-khouris-statement-to-the-cotton-club\/\">Acting Chairman Michael A. Khouri\u2019s Statement to the Cotton Club<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/acting-chairman-michael-a-khouris-statement-to-the-cotton-club\/embed\/#?secret=SSkzd9jBx6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Acting Chairman Michael A. Khouri\u2019s Statement to the Cotton Club” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"SSkzd9jBx6\" 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"}
EX-10.5


  Exhibit 10.5

  AMENDMENT #1 TO 

  CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN

  KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS INC. 

  AND JATIN SHAH, M.D.

   

  THIS AMENDMENT #1 (“Amendment”) amends the Consulting Agreement between Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. (“Karyopharm”) and Jatin Shah, M.D. (“Consultant”) with an Effective Date of the 1st day of March 2022, (the “Agreement”).  This Amendment shall be effective as of March 21, 2022 (the “Amendment 1 Effective Date”).

  	WHEREAS, the Consultant and the Company agree to amend the description of services provided by the Consultant; and

  WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the hours of services to be provided by Consultant.  

  	NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

  1.Amendments. 


   

  Exhibits. Exhibit A is hereby deleted in its entirety, and replaced with A-1, attached hereto, which shall be effective as of the Amendment 1 Effective Date. 

   

  2.Miscellaneous. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms in this Amendment have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and electronically, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.


   

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is effective as of the Amendment #1 Effective Date.

   

  KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS INC. 	JATIN SHAH, M.D.

   

  /s/ Steven Rotman_____________________		/s/ Jatin Sha___________________

  By:    Steven Rotman			By:  

  Title:  Chief People & Corporate Engagement Officer	Title: 

   

  1

   

  

  Exhibit A-1

   

   

  DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 

   

  The Consultant shall provide assistance to the Company, as from time to time reasonably requested by the Chief Executive Officer or his designees limited to institutional knowledge relating to myeloma specific matters for internal purposes only.

   

  The Consultant shall devote up to 15 hours per month to providing Services.

   

  2
#### Lauriano Cervantes MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73303.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 5, 2008.

Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.

Mary Jane Candaux, Joanne E. Johnson, Jennifer L. Lightbody, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS—

*676District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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 **

Lauriano Cervantes Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, *Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales,*468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we review questions of law de novo, *id.*We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review Cervantes Mendoza’s due process contention, as it was not exhausted before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

The BIA correctly concluded that Cervantes Mendoza’s conviction was final for immigration purposes. *See Grageda v. INS,*12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993) (“[Bjecause Grageda had exhausted his direct appeals and because the coram nobis petitions were collateral attacks, his conviction was final [for immigration purposes].”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"id":4,"count":632,"description":"","link":"\/category\/news-releases\/","name":"News Releases","slug":"news-releases","taxonomy":"category","parent":0,"meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/4"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=4"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}