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

No. 05-50563.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

*581US Attorneys Office, Kevin M. Mulcahy, Esq., USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Zandra L. Lopez, Esq., FDSD — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Estrella-Aeosta appeals from his conviction and the 21-month sentence imposed for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Estrella-Aeosta first contends that the district court erred by refusing to dismiss his indictment because the indictment failed to allege an overt act that was a substantial step, an essential element of his offense of attempted entry. This contention is foreclosed. *See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce,*- U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 782, 788, 166 L.Ed.2d 591 (2007).

Estrella-Aeosta next contends that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss his indictment because of improper grand jury instructions. Estrella-Aeosta acknowledges that *United States v. Navarro-Vargas,*408 F.3d 1184, 1204-08 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), forecloses all of his grand jury challenges, except for his challenge to the instruction related to potential punishment for a crime. However, we have held that this grand jury instruction is constitutional. *See United States v. Cortez-Rivera,*454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, his contention is foreclosed.

Finally, Estrella-Aeosta contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on a prior conviction that he did not admit, and was not found *582beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), has been overruled and that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed. *See United States v. Velasquez-Reyes,*427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005); *see also United States v. Beng-Salazar,*452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (reaffirming the validity of Almendarez-Torres and rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 05, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 05, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0203. CODY A. COOPER v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CR392
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1269

In re: SOMCHAI NOONSAB , Petitioner

.

On Petition s for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:20

- cv - 00401

- MR )

Submitted : June 24, 2021 Decided: June 28, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Somchai Noonsab, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: North Carolina prisoner Somchai Noonsab petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking various forms of relief, including requesting that this court recognize that certain North Carolina legislation is unconstitutional, suggesting that a state court judge has co mmitted ethical violations , and asking that his freedom be restored with monetary relief. We conclude that Noonsab is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U .S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relie f [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) . Importantly, t his court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 5 86, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). None of the forms of relief that Noonsab seeks are available by way of mandamus and , further, he fail s to a llege extraordinary circumstances or a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought . Accordingly, we deny the petition s for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 present ed in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

PETITION S DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 1659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-197-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

January 3, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 21, 2000 Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) Thirty First Revised Sheet No. 50 to 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1. The proposed effective 
date of the attached tariff sheet is November 1, 2000.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track 
rate changes attributable to transportation service purchased from 
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) under its Rate Schedule 
FT the costs of which are included in the rates and charges payable 
under Transco's Rate Schedule FT-NT. This filing is being made pursuant 
to tracking provisions under Section 4 of the Transco's Rate Schedule 
FT-NT.
    Included in Appendix B attached to the filing is the explanation of 
the rate changes and details regarding the computation of the revised 
FT-NT rates.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each 
of its FT-NT customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet 
in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 
on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-529 Filed 1-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-383-022]

Take notice that on February 23, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 1406, with an effective date of November 1, 2000.

DTI states that the tariff sheet is being made to  comply with the Commission's January 24, 2001, Letter Order in Docket No. RP96-383-017.

DTI states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures have been served upon DTI's customers and interested state commissions.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to                           ( print page 13518)                        the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-5356  Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00458

- CV

Stephano Aviles, Appellant

v.

Jessica Lynn Aviles, Appellee

FROM THE 169TH DISTR ICT COURT OF BELL CO UNTY NO. 310,152

- C, THE H ONORABLE GORDON G. A DAMS, JUDGE PRESIDIN G

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on December 2, 2019

. On February 18, 2020

,

this C ourt sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a failure to

file a satisfactor y response by February 28, 2020

, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for

want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a b rief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. A p p . P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly , and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 5, 2020
2009-1362.

#### Walsh v. Mayfield.

Cuyahoga App. No. 92309, 2009-Ohio-2377.
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS


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





Principal
Executive Officer





I,
Xiaoqun Ye, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Kun Run Biotechnology, Inc. for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008;





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;







By:
            /s/
      Xiaoqun YeDated:
      July 30, 2009Name:
      Xiaoqun YeTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### Juan CABRERA-FLORES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ennis OATES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-7888.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 21, 2014.

Juan Cabrera-Flores, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Cabrera-Flores seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. Cabrera-Flores may not appeal unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition 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 Cabrera-Flores has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cabrera-Flores’ motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EX-35.1
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation


ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION


The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR4 Agreement (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1.   A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January
     1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period")
     and EMC's performance under the Agreement has been made under my
     supervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
     its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
     Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 12th
day of March 2008.

By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration


(logo) MBA Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190 Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63    OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

     In connection with the Annual Report of Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul D. Lapping, Principal 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 to the best of 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/ Paul D. LappingPaul D. LappingPrincipal Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp. and will beretained by Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
[No. 55000-4-I.

Division One.

September 17, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent, v.*Walter John King, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-06985-6, Anthony P. Wartnik, J., entered September 3, 2004. *Reversed*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Robert Mason HENDRICKS; Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert STEPP, Esquire; Rhonda Hunsinger; Maurice Hood; Jeannie Weingarth; Michael Taylor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1590.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 10, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 30, 2010.

Robert Mason Hendricks, Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Appellants Pro Se. Mark S. Barrow, William R. Calhoun, Jr., Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher John Near, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Columbia, South Carolina; Janet Brooks Holmes, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Hendricks and Jacqueline Hendricks appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the district court’s July 22, 2009 dismissal of their civil action. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); *MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines,*532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir.2008); *Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co.,*116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2765 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2765

To provide for a temporary extension in the method currently being used 
to determine Government contributions under the health benefits program 
  for Federal employees in the absence of a Government-wide indemnity 
                             benefit plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a temporary extension in the method currently being used 
to determine Government contributions under the health benefits program 
  for Federal employees in the absence of a Government-wide indemnity 
                             benefit plan.

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

SECTION. 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF METHOD FOR DETERMINING GOVERNMENT 
              CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER FEHBP IN THE ABSENCE OF A GOVERNMENT-
              WIDE INDEMNITY BENEFIT PLAN.

    (a) In General.--Public Law 101-76 (5 U.S.C. 8906 note) is amended 
in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``1993'' and inserting ``1996''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
nothing in this section should be considered to reflect any view on the 
appropriateness, merits, or timing, or any other aspect of any 
comprehensive health care reform legislation.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
23.2






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS
 
 
 
 We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form
10-K/A of Vanity
Holding Group, Inc.
for the period from August 25, 2004 (Date of Inception) to December 31, 2008 of
our report dated March 30, 2009, relating to the financial statements for the
period from August 25, 2004 (Date of Inception) to December 31, 2008 listed in
the accompanying index.
 
 
 
 /s/
Drakeford & Drakeford, LLC
 Drakeford
& Drakeford,LLC
 New York/
New York
 
 April 14,
2009
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2647

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide

Line.program shall be based on the International Dateunder the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurancethat the effective date of any changes in benefits
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2647

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that

the effective date of any changes in benefits under the

Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance program shall be

based on the International Date Line.

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

3 SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR CHANGES IN SERVICE4 MEN’S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM.

5 (a) USE OF INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE.—Section

6 1967 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new subsection:
2

•HR 2647 EH

1 ‘‘(f) The effective date and time for any change in

2 benefits under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance

3 program shall be based on the date and time according

4 to the time zone immediately west of the International

5 Date Line.’’.

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to amendments to

8 chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code, that take effect

9 after November 29, 1992.

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.