alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eduardo RUELAS-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-50740.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 16, 2007.

Joseph S. Green, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael L. Crowley, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Eduardo RuelasLopez (“Ruelas-Lopez”) challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing that the Border Patrol agent did not have “reasonable suspicion” to support the investigatory stop that led to the seizure. We review the district court’s finding of reasonable suspicion de novo. *United*
      *708
      *States v. Arvizu,*534 U.S. 266, 275, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). The court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. *United States v. Camacho,*368 F.3d 1182, 1183 (9th Cir.2004).

Ruelas-Lopez is correct that the second stop of his vehicle within a short period of time after being released from the first stop by Border Patrol Agent Andrew Mayer (“Mayer”) must be supported by “reasonable suspicion” independent of any suspicion that was dispelled as a result of the first stop. Here, all of the factors taken together “sufficed to form a particularized and objective basis” for the second stop of Ruelas-Lopez’s vehicle. *Arvizu,*534 U.S. at 277-78, 122 S.Ct. 744; *United States v. Sigmond-Ballesteros,*285 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2002). Immediately upon return to his patrol vehicle after the first stop, Mayer learned that the car seen driving in tandem with Ruelas-Lopez’s pickup truck on three occasions that day “was stopped and [illegal] aliens [had been] sighted.” *United States v. Munoz,*604 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir.1979). Therefore, “there was clearly suspicion [for the second] stop [of Ruelas-Lopez’s] vehicle.” *Id.*As that suspicion arose after the first stop and entirely independently, the circumstances of the first stop do not affect the validity of the second stop.

AFFIRMED.

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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2824

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 14 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To modify the project for flood control, James River Basin,

Richmond, Virginia.

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

3 SECTION 1. JAMES RIVER BASIN, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

4 The project for flood control, James River Basin,

5 Richmond, Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the

6 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.

7 4126) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army

8 to construct the project at a total cost of $134,000,000,
2

•HR 2824 RFS

1 with an estimated Federal cost of $100,500,000 and an

2 estimated non-Federal cost of $33,500,000.

Passed the House of Representatives September 13,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Exhibit  32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCM Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned in the capacity and on
the  date  indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  (18  U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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.

Date:  August  18,  2003
by:  /s/  Albert  Reda
     -----------------
Albert  Reda
Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Financial  Officer


                                       18
<PAGE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Thomas, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Thomas,*124 Ohio St.3d 412, 2010-Ohio-577.]

(No. 2009-0630

Submitted February 17, 2010

Decided February 24, 2010.)

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals entered on March 6, 2009 is vacated. The judgment of the trial court entered on May 12, 2009, resentencing appellee pursuant to the court of appeals’ judgment, is also vacated.

{¶ 2} The cause is remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether postrelease control was properly imposed in appellee’s 2001 sentence and, if not, for resentencing.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

*413Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
#### In the Matter of Joseph G. Colbert (Admitted as Joseph George Colbert), a Suspended Attorney.

[25 NYS3d 616]

— Motion by Joseph G. Colbert for reinstatement to the bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Colbert was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Department on February 3, 1993, under the name Joseph George Colbert. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 27, 2013, Mr. Colbert was immediately suspended based on his conviction of a serious crime, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the issues raised were referred to the Honorable Abraham Gerges, as Special Referee, to hear and report. By opinion and order of this Court dated August 27, 2014, Mr. Colbert was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, with credit for the time elapsed under the decision and order on motion dated June 27, 2013 *(see Matter of Colbert,*121 AD3d 323 [2014]). By decision and *1027order of this Court dated May 5, 2015, Mr. Colbert’s motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to hear and report on his current character and general fitness to practice law.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, Joseph George Colbert is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of Joseph George Colbert to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.5

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
               AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                       MACE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

         MACE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "Corporation")
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

         FIRST:            The name of the Corporation is "Mace Security
                           International, Inc."

         SECOND:           The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
                           was filed by the Secretary of State on December 28,
                           1999.

         THIRD:            The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
                           is hereby amended to provide for a decrease in the
                           number of authorized shares of Common Stock, par
                           value $.01 per share, from 200,000,000 to
                           100,000,000, and for a decrease in the number of
                           authorized shares of Preferred Stock, par value $.01
                           per share, from 50,000,000 to 10,000,000.

         FOURTH:           To accomplish the foregoing amendment, the first
                           sentence of Article FOURTH of the Amended and
                           Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby
                           amended to read as follows:

                           The total number of shares of capital stock which the
                           corporation shall have authority to issue is One
                           Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of common stock,
                           par value $.01 per share (the "Common Stock"), and
                           Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of preferred stock,
                           par value $.01 per share (the "Preferred Stock").

         FIFTH:            The foregoing amendment was adopted by the directors
                           and shareholders of the Corporation at duly called
                           meetings of the board and shareholders, respectively,
                           in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of
                           the Delaware General Corporation Law.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be executed by
a duly authorized officer of the Corporation this 12th day of December, 2000.

                                       Mace Security International, Inc.


                                       /s/ Robert M. Kramer
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert M. Kramer
                                       Executive Vice President
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 20 22

- 1580

_____________________________ L EONARD T AYLOR , Petitioner ,

v.
F LORIDA D EPT OF C ORRECTIONS , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

. John C. Cooper , Judge

. January 16, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. D ISMISSED

. B ILBREY , N ORDBY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur
.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
Leonard Taylor, pro se , Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kelly R. Forren, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
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.                  

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1

      ( print page 9651)    

### CFR Correction

In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§ 1.1401 to End), revised as of April 1, 2000, in § 1.1502-75, paragraph (k) is corrected by correctly revising “See § 1.338(h)(10)-T(d)(7)” to read “See § 1.338(h)(10)-1T(d)(7)”. 

[FR Doc. 01-55500 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
#### In Re: DB ISLAMORADA, LLC, Debtor-in-Possession. David Finnegan, William P. Kelly, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DB Islamorada, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-10780.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 19, 2011.

William Patrick Kelly, Jr., Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

*280Patricia A. Redmond, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves a challenge to sanctions imposed by the Bankruptcy Court on David Finnegan (client) and William P. Kelly, Jr. (lawyer). We have studied the record and the briefs and have had the benefit of oral argument. The record simply fails to support the sanctions imposed on David Finnegan. On the other hand, there is ample evidence supporting the sanctions imposed upon William P. Kelly, Jr.

The sanctions imposed upon David Finnegan are vacated; the sanctions imposed upon William P. Kelly, Jr. are affirmed.

VACATED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,049]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 5, 2000, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Puget Plastics Corporation, Tualatin, Oregon.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.  Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January 2001.

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 01-5082  Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           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 Annual Report of Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Eric Eddings, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby
certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Registrant.

Dated: March 12, 2008                                    /s/ ERIC C. EDDINGS
                                                         -------------------
                                                         Eric C. Eddings
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 13, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Portland Cement Association has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Allentown Cement Company, Allentown, PA was absorbed by Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Blandon, PA; Magotteaux-Slegten has changed its name to Magotteaux, Inc., Brentwood, TN; and Fuller Company has changed its name to F.L. Smidth Inc., Bethlehem, PA. Also, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; and Trinity Consultants, Inc., Olathe, KS have been added as parties to this venture. And Herzog Automation, Cleveland, OH has been dropped as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Portland Cement Association intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 7, 1985, Portland Cement Association filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 5, 1985 (50 FR 5015).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 27, 2000. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49266).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01-5712  Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
##### 



Exhibit 32(b)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.

Herman F. Dick, Jr.Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 14, 2006
 29
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 20 In the Matter of Exeter Building Corp., et al., Appellants, v. Town of Newburgh, et al., Respondents.

Richard B. Golden, for appellants. Michael H. Donnelly, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

An owner of real property can acquire a common law vested right to develop the property in accordance with prior zoning regulations when, in reliance on a "legally issued

- 1 -- 2 - No. 20

permit," the landowner "effect[s] substantial changes and incur[s] substantial expenses to further the development" and "[t]he landowner's actions relying on [the] valid permit [are] so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless" (Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41, 47-48 [1996]; see generally 4 Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 70:20 [4th ed]). Here, it was not reasonable for petitioners to rely on the December 2007 conditional Final Site Approval of the development, in carrying out any substantial actions furthering the development. In particular, in 2005, the year before the rezoning of petitioners' property by means of Local Law No. 3 (2006) of Town of Newburgh, the Town Planning Board had repeatedly warned petitioners of the proposed rezoning. The December 2007 Approval itself did not engender expectations to the contrary. It included a statement of the new zoning status of the property. Additionally, while petitioners challenged the rezoning in court, petitioners must have been "cognizant of the potential for an eventual legal ruling that the Local Law was in fact valid" (Preble Aggregate v Town of Preble, 263 AD2d 849, 851 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 760 [2000]).

We need not address whether a conditional final site approval can be the basis for acquisition of a vested right to develop property. Even if the right could vest under such a site approval, petitioners here do not satisfy the Magee test, because

- 2 -- 3 - No. 20

the element of reasonable reliance on municipal permission was not satisfied. 1 Nor did limited permits, authorizing petitioners to demolish a single-family residence, remove certain water tanks and their foundation, conduct clearing and grading, and erect signs on the subject property, amount to approval of petitioners' proposed development. Consequently, the Appellate Division properly held that petitioners have no vested right to develop the subject property under the prior zoning regulations.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia took no part.
Decided February 11, 2016

1 Given our analysis, there is no occasion for us to decide whether Supreme Court improperly conducted a trial/hearing to decide whether the remaining elements of the Magee test were met, rather than remanding to the Zoning Board.
- 3 -
2010-0531.

#### Henderson v. Shaffer.

In Habeas Corpus. On motion for judgment. Motion denied.