alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"id":4621,"date":"2020-03-18T16:40:02","date_gmt":"2020-03-18T20:40:02","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=4621"},"modified":"2020-03-19T16:41:17","modified_gmt":"2020-03-19T20:41:17","slug":"meeting-of-the-fmc-march-16-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/meeting-of-the-fmc-march-16-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Meeting of the Federal Maritime Commission \u2013 March 16, 2020"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Statutory Authority: 46 U.S.C. Sec. 303<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The meeting convened at 3:00 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>All individuals present at the meeting were Commissioners or Commission employees:\u00a0 <em>Chairman Michael A. Khouri, Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner Daniel J. Maffei, Commissioner Louis E. Sola, Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel, John Moran, Robert Blair, Katharine Primosch, Cory Cinque, Mary T. Hoang, William Shakely, Rachel Dickon<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Summary of matters discussed:<\/p>\n<p>The Chairman briefed the Commissioners on his direction to agency managers in light of recent OMB Memoranda in response to COVID-19.\u00a0 In particular, the Chairman set forth plans for implementation including maximizing telework and updated federal travel guidance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Statutory Authority: 46 U.S.C. Sec. 303 The meeting convened at 3:00 p.m. All individuals present at the meeting were Commissioners or Commission employees:\u00a0 Chairman Michael A. Khouri, Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner Daniel J. Maffei, Commissioner Louis E. Sola, Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel, John Moran, Robert Blair, Katharine Primosch, Cory... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/meeting-of-the-fmc-march-16-2020\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[37,4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4621"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4621"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4621\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4622,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4621\/revisions\/4622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ali Abdul Ghani KHALEEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-1963.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 22, 2016.

Filed: Jan. 27, 2016.

Patrick J. Reinert, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Forest David Eastman, Clear Lake, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ali Abdul Ghani Khaleel, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*648[Unpublished]

PER CURIAM.

Ali Abdul Ghani Khaleel appeals after the district court1 denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2012, a jury convicted Khaleel of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and a substance containing cocaine base with the intent to distribute. The district court determined that the applicable Guidelines range was 78-97 months, and sentenced Khaleel to 78 months in prison. In November 2014, Khaleel filed a pro se section 3582(c)(2) motion, seeking a reduced sentence under Amendment 782 (effective November 1, 2014). After conducting a hearing, the district court found that Khaleel was eligible for a reduction, and that the amended Guidelines range was 63-78 months; but that a reduction was not warranted in light of the sentencing factors, his prison conduct that raised considerable public safety concerns, and his obstruction of justice and lying to the court prior to his conviction. On appeal, Khaleel argues that the district court abused its discretion by considering factors that 'were already taken into account at his original sentencing, and that his prison conduct did not indicate his risk to society.

We conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as the district court’s finding that a reduction was .not warranted was not an abuse of discretion. *See Dillon v. United*States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce sentence by applying amended Guidelines range as it if were in effect at time of original sentencing, and leaving all other Guidelines determinations intact as previously determined); *United States v. Long,*757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir.2014) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes modification, and abuse-of-discretion review of decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification). The judgment is affirmed, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Khaleel’s motion for appointed counsel is denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 10(b) 


        
        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
        FIRM


        
         


        
        We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
        “Financial Highlights” in this Post Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
        Statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No. 333-123779) and
        under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (File No. 811-21744) of FDP Series,
        Inc.


        
         


        
        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


        
         


        
        New York, New York


        
        September 26, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nakie HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-8181.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 5, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 19, 2010.

Nakie Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nakie Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Harris’s pending motion to seal the record. 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.*
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act
 
 I, Eran Broshy, Chief Executive Officer of Ventiv Health, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ventiv Health, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 DATE: May 6, 2004

By:

/S/    ERANBROSHYEran Broshy
Chief Executive Officer
### NU M BER 13- 07-476- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ ROB ERTGA

VL IK, A pp ellan t,
v . RA YM OND B YRD , A pp ellee.

____ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Yañ ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Rob ert G av li k, and appell ee, Ray mond By rd , hav e f il ed a joi nt mot ion for dis mis sal of thi s appeal . Acc ordin g to the j oin t moti on, t he par ti es hav e mutual ly

resol v ed all matters in c o n tr ov ersy between t hem and hav e ag re ed th at t hisca use shoul d be dis mis sed w it h preju dic e.2

T he Cou rt, having consid ered the do cum ent s on file and the joint mo tion to dismiss the a ppeal , i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 1(a). Th e joint m otion to dism iss is GRANT ED, and the ap pea l is here by DISMISSE D. By ag re ement of

the par ti es, costsw il l be ta x ed ag ain st the p arty i ncur ri ng sa me. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d)( "Abse nt ag re ement of the par ti es, the courtw il l tax

co stsag ain st the appel lan t.")

. P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 19t h day

of June, 2008.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge:

         i.      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         ii.     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                 material respects, the financial condition and results of
                 operations of the Company.

/s/ Shujun Liu
---------------------------------------
Shujun Liu
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio Martinez ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50277.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Christina M. McCall, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Carey D. Gorden, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Martinez Acevedo appeals from the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction *571pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Acevedo contends that the district court impermissibly enhanced his sentence based upon a prior conviction that was neither admitted by him nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed. *See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 5*30 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Acevedo also contends that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable because it assigned undue weight to certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors while excluding others, and by neglecting to address his requests for adjustments and departures. Acevedo’s contention fails as the record reflects that the district court fashioned a sentence based upon a consideration of all relevant § 3553(a) factors, and rejected Acevedo’s arguments for downward adjustments and departures. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence imposed is not substantively unreasonable. *See Gall v. United -*U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
74 A.3d 1027

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Petitioner v. OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS, Respondent Eastern Pennsylvania Citizens Against Gambling and James D. Schneller, Intervenor Valley Forge Convention Center Partners, LP, Intervenor.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 11, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are

> *1321. Did the Commonwealth Court err when it held that any-written request for records received by any government agency is to be considered a Right-to-Know Law request even when the request does not meet the Law’s bare minimum requirements for triggering the Law’s application and appeal rights?

> 2. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in its analysis under the rules of Statutory Construction by not applying the Right-to-Know Law’s clear and plain language which resulted in an application of the law contrary to the intent of the General Assembly?
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the undersigned officers’ knowledge:





i.
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





ii.
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Tony
Liu





Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


May 11,
2009








/s/
Yanchun Li


Yanchun
Li


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)


May 11,
2009
| (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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |                                                         |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                                         |   |
| Date:      December 19, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Ronald      A. Warren                               |   |
|                         |   | Ronald      A. Warren                                        |   |
|                         |   | Chief      Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
|                         |   |                                                         |   |
IN THE 

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

OF TEXAS 

JASON SNAVELY § 

§ 

VS. § CASE NO. 01-15-00185-CR

§ 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE 

BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

NOW COMES, JASON SNAVELY, appellant in the above-styled and 

numbered cause, by and through his attorney of record, Daucie Schindler, and 

respectfully moves the Court for an extension of time within which to file the 

appellate brief, and for cause would show the Court as follows: 

I.

Mr. Snavely was charged with the felony offense of aggravated assault of a 

household member. On February 14, 2014, Mr. Snavely was convicted as charged 

and sentenced by the jury to fifty-five (55) years imprisonment in the Institutional 

Division of Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

II.

Mr. Snavely filed timely notice of appeal. Undersigned counsel, of The Harris 

County Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Mr. Snavely on February 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00185-cr

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/19/2015 10:13:00 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/19/2015 10:13:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
19, 2015. 

III.

The appellate brief is due to be filed with the Court on or before June 19, 2015. 

One previous extension has been requested. 

IV.

Undersigned counsel has been working simultaneously on appeal in State v. 

Earvin, State v. Wiggins, State v. Tavarez, State v. Phillips, State v. Means, State v. 

Umanzor, and State v. Mays. Counsel is diligently working on the brief in this case, 

but requests additional time for the supplementation of the record and to research 

and confer with the client.

V.

This request is made not to delay the proceedings, but to ensure that Mr. 

Snavely is adequately represented.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Mr. Snavely respectfully prays that 

this motion be granted and that the Court permits an extension of time until July 20,

2015, to file the appellate brief.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County Texas 

/s/ Daucie Schindler

DAUCIE SCHINDLER

Assistant Public Defender 

Harris County Texas 

1201 Franklin, 13th Floor

Houston Texas 77002

(713) 368-0016

(713) 368-9278 (Fax)

Daucie.Schindler@pdo.hctx.net

Attorney for Appellant,

JASON SNAVELY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s 

Motion to Extend Time within Which to File Appellate Brief was e-mailed to the 

Appellate Division of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office on this 19th day of 

June, 2015.

/s/ Daucie Schindler

DAUCIE SCHINDLER