alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VICTORIA M. JIM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30102

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-02035-EFS-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2012

Seattle, Washington

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Victoria Jim argues that she was subject to custodial

interrogation without being advised of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384

U.S. 436 (1966), but she did not bring a motion to suppress on this basis prior to

FILED

NOV 27 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

trial. Failure to bring a motion to suppress prior to trial waives the issue for

appeal. United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Although we may in our discretion address the Miranda issue for “cause

shown,” id.; United States v. Restrepo-Rua, 815 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987),

Jim has provided no explanation for her failure to bring the motion prior to trial. 

See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000).

In an opinion filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum, in the case

of United States v. Wahchumwah, No. 11-30101, we determined that Counts 4 and

5 of the indictment involving Ricky Wahchumwah, Jim’s co-defendant, are

multiplicitous. Both Jim and Wahchumwah are named in Counts 4 and 5, and Jim

challenged the counts as multiplicitous at trial. However, only Wahchumwah

appealed the issue. “We ‘will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not

specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief.’” United States v.

Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.,

797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986)). However, “we may review an issue if the

failure to raise the issue properly did not prejudice the defense of the opposing

party.” Id. Here, the government fully addressed the multiplicity issue in its

answering brief to Wahchumwah and has not been prejudiced. Thus, for the

reasons addressed in the Wahchumwah opinion, one of Jim’s convictions on
3

Counts 4 and 5 must be vacated. We leave to the district court the decision of

which count to vacate. 

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED AND REMANDED in part.
### §3311. Required review of regulations

#### (a) In general

Not less frequently than once every 10 years, the Council and each appropriate Federal banking agency represented on the Council shall conduct a review of all regulations prescribed by the Council or by any such appropriate Federal banking agency, respectively, in order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.

#### (b) Process

In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Council or the appropriate Federal banking agency shall—

(1) categorize the regulations described in subsection (a) by type (such as consumer regulations, safety and soundness regulations, or such other designations as determined by the Council, or the appropriate Federal banking agency); and

(2) at regular intervals, provide notice and solicit public comment on a particular category or categories of regulations, requesting commentators to identify areas of the regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome.

#### (c) Complete review

The Council or the appropriate Federal banking agency shall ensure that the notice and comment period described in subsection (b)(2) is conducted with respect to all regulations described in subsection (a) not less frequently than once every 10 years.

#### (d) Regulatory response

The Council or the appropriate Federal banking agency shall—

(1) publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received under this section, identifying significant issues raised and providing comment on such issues; and

(2) eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate.

#### (e) Report to Congress

Not later than 30 days after carrying out subsection (d)(1), the Council shall submit to the Congress a report, which shall include—

(1) a summary of any significant issues raised by public comments received by the Council and the appropriate Federal banking agencies under this section and the relative merits of such issues; and

(2) an analysis of whether the appropriate Federal banking agency involved is able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues by regulation, or whether such burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

(Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2222, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–414.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section enacted as part of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 which comprises this chapter.
#### Daniels *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 12,024.

Filed November 7, 1924.]

From Marion Juvenile Court (A 21,360); *Frank J. Lahr,*Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Elizabeth Daniels. From the judgment rendered, the defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*M. W. Franklin,*for appellant.

*V. S. Lesh,*Attorney-General, *Amet B. Cronk*and *Carl Wilde,*for the State.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
## J 

## T B USA, Inc.**~----.-.--.-.-.-~----** DETROIT OFFICE 

# }1B

43155 Main St., Suite 2212;::' Novi, MI 48375 TEL: 248-347-7020 FAX: 248-449-9610

# ,...-!~ TOLL FREE: 800-451-7995 

### S 1 0-100323-009
CONTROL NO

The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590**-~** .. Secretary LaHood:--

___ On behalfof President Irita, I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth ofour business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport.
Detroit is aproven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support**trans~pacific** routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to Asia The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit our business travelers.
Thank you for consideration ofthis request.

# ·-~l~itft~~(~~~ General Manager JTB USA, Inc. Detroit Office 43155 Main St, Suite 2212A Novi, MI 48375
H. Res. 621

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 10, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the

House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker’s

table the bill H.R. 150, with the Senate amendment thereto,

and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with the following amendment:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the

amendment of the Senate, insert the following:

1 SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Education Land Grant

3 Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

5 LANDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.

6 (a) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—Upon application, the

7 Secretary of Agriculture may convey National Forest Sys8 tem lands for use for educational purposes if the Secretary

9 determines that—

10 (1) the entity seeking the conveyance will use

11 the conveyed land for a public or publicly funded ele-
2

•HRES 621 EH

1 mentary or secondary school, to provide grounds or

2 facilities related to such a school, or for both pur3 poses;

4 (2) the conveyance will serve the public interest;

5 (3) the land to be conveyed is not otherwise

6 needed for the purposes of the National Forest Sys7 tem; and

8 (4) the total acreage to be conveyed does not

9 exceed the amount reasonably necessary for the pro10 posed use.

11 (b) ACREAGE LIMITATION.—A conveyance under this

12 section may not exceed 80 acres. However, this limitation

13 shall not be construed to preclude an entity from submit14 ting a subsequent application under this section for an ad15 ditional land conveyance if the entity can demonstrate to

16 the Secretary a need for additional land.

17 (c) COSTS AND MINERAL RIGHTS.—A conveyance

18 under this section shall be for a nominal cost. The convey19 ance may not include the transfer of mineral rights.

20 (d) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—When the Secretary

21 receives an application under this section, the Secretary

22 shall—

23 (1) before the end of the 14-day period begin24 ning on the date of the receipt of the application,

25 provide notice of that receipt to the applicant; and
3

•HRES 621 EH

1 (2) before the end of the 120-day period begin2 ning on that date—

3 (A) make a final determination whether or

4 not to convey land pursuant to the application,

5 and notify the applicant of that determination;

6 or

7 (B) submit written notice to the applicant

8 containing the reasons why a final determina9 tion has not been made.

10 (e) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If at any time after

11 lands are conveyed pursuant to this section, the entity to

12 whom the lands were conveyed attempts to transfer title

13 to or control over the lands to another or the lands are

14 devoted to a use other than the use for which the lands

15 were conveyed, without the consent of the Secretary, title

16 to the lands shall revert to the United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §1138f. Repealed. Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title I, §110(b), 69 Stat. 662

Section, acts June 16, 1938, ch. 98, title VI, §66, 48 Stat. 269; Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, title XII, §1201, 63 Stat. 972; Oct. 24, 1951, ch. 554, §3, 65 Stat. 614; June 28, 1955, ch. 189, §5, 69 Stat. 178, limited to $14,620 per annum compensation which could be paid directors, officers, or employees of banks for cooperatives, production credit corporations, and production credit associations.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Act Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title I, §112, 69 Stat. 662, provided that: "This title [repealing this section and amending section 1141f of this title] shall take effect on the first day of the month next following one hundred and twenty days after its enactment [Aug. 11, 1955]."
#### Casita, L.P., Appellant, v MapleWood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd., Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 6]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 22, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant is an investment fund organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Evidence in the record established that an attorney with the firm representing plaintiff had previously performed substantial work, at a prior law firm, on defendant’s formation and its relationship with several affiliated entities, as well as on investment issues. Plaintiff, who invested in one of these affiliated entities through defendant, alleges that the latter’s contested capital call was belated, according to purportedly unambiguous language in its articles of association and subscription agreement. However, these articles did allow for collection of accrued expenses and fees even as part of a belated capital *252call, and. the instant call included substantial expenses. Inasmuch as the nature of the allowable expenses is arguably ambiguous under the controlling documents, extrinsic evidence potentially could be warranted. Consequently, the challenged attorney’s prior legal work in drafting and negotiating defendant’s articles of association and subscription agreement was properly found to constitute a matter substantially related to the instant litigation, which challenges the validity of the capital call made pursuant to said documents. Plainly, defendant’s interests in this litigation are adverse to those of plaintiff, who has declined to pay on the capital call. Since defendant’s proof met the test for disqualification, an irrebuttable presumption for such remedy arises *(Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis,*89 NY2d 123, 130-131 [1996]; *see*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-108 [a] [1] [22 NYCRR 1200.27 (a) (1)]). Even were that not the case, the attorney’s submissions regarding his legal work for defendant and his noninvolvement in the matters at issue at his current firm were conclusory and insufficient *(see Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn.,*93 NY2d 611, 619 [1999]). Inasmuch as the attorney’s proof failed to rebut the presumption, the firm’s erection of a “Chinese Wall” between this matter and said counsel is insufficient to avert disqualification under the circumstances *(id.).*

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 11 Misc 3d 1054(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50206(11) (2006).]
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-116 

December 31, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator

4063 Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of August 28, 1975, regarding the withdrawal of * * * Plan ("the Plan"). You

asked that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") determine * * * liability under Section 4063 of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("the Act"). 

Section 4063 of the Act sets forth the liability of a substantial employer for withdrawal from a plan under which

more than one employer contributes. Based on a review of the Plan and its operation, we have determined that the * *

* is a group of single employer plans rather than a plan to which more than one employer contributes. Benefits are not

payable with respect to each participant without regard to the cessation of contributions by the employer who employed

that participant. Rather, benefits under the Plan are payable to the employees of the withdrawing employer only to the

extent of the assets attributable to that employer's contributions. 

Consequently, the withdrawal of * * * is not subject to the provisions of Section 4063 of the Act but rather

constitutes a termination under Section 4041 [*2] of the Act for that part of the Plan allocable to * * * 

In order to comply with the provisions of Section 4041 of the Act, the plan administrator is required to notify the

PBGC at least 10 days prior to the proposed date of termination. This notice must be filed in accordance with the

PBGC's Notice of Intent to Terminate Regulation, a copy of which is enclosed. 

Your notice should be sent to the attention of * * * It is not necessary to resubmit information and documents

previously supplied. The proposed date of termination will not necessarily be the date of termination for the purposes

of Title IV. That date will be determined in accordance with Section 4048 of the Act. Under section 4041(a) of the Act,

a plan administrator who has filed a termination notice with the Corporation shall, for a period of 90 days after the

proposed termination date, pay no amount pursuant to the termination procedure of the plan unless he receives a notice

of sufficiency from the Corporation to proceed with the termination. Furthermore, note that in all terminations, plan

assets have to be allocated as specified by Section 4044 of the Act. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
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-QSB of Inverted Paradigms Corporation (the Company), for the six month period
ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stewart York, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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/ Stewart York       
|Stewart York           
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|Dated: February 8, 2007



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inverted Paradigms Corporation and will be retained by Inverted Paradigms Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §4748. Reimbursement to Fund

#### (a) In general

If a participating State withdraws funds from a reserve fund pursuant to terms of the participation agreement permitted by subsection (d) or (r) of section 4745 of this title, such participating State shall, not later than 15 calendar days after such withdrawal, submit to the Fund an amount computed by multiplying the amount withdrawn by the appropriate factor, as determined under subsection (b).

#### (b) Factor

The appropriate factor shall be obtained by dividing the total amount of contributions that have been made by the participating State to all reserve funds which were subject to reimbursement—

(1) by 2; and

(2) by the total amount of contributions made by the participating State to all reserve funds, including if applicable, contributions that have been made by the State prior to becoming a participating State if the State continued its own capital access program in accordance with section 4743(b) of this title.

#### (c) Use of reimbursements

The Fund may use funds reimbursed pursuant to this section to make reimbursements under section 4747 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–325, title II, §258, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2213.)
§ 116.9 Creditors that cannot be found or that are out of business. ( a ) *General requirements.* A political committee may request that the Commission determine that a debt owed to a creditor is not payable for purposes of the Act if the debt has been outstanding for at least twenty-four months, and the requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as appropriate, have been satisfied, and— ( 1 ) The creditor has gone out of business and no other entity has a right to be paid the amount owed; or
( 2 ) The political committee has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to locate the creditor and has been unable to do so. *Reasonable diligence in attempting to locate the creditor* means the political committee has attempted to ascertain the current address, telephone number, and email address, and has attempted to contact the creditor by registered or certified mail, and either in person, by telephone, or by email.
( b ) *Terminating committees.* If the political committee making the request is a terminating committee, the terminating committee shall include the request in a debt settlement plan filed with the Commission, and shall demonstrate that the requirements of 11 CFR 116.3, 116.5 or 116.6, as appropriate, and 116.9(a) are satisfied. The terminating committee shall continue to disclose the debt on its schedules of outstanding debts and obligations until the Commission has completed its review of the debt settlement plan pursuant to 11 CFR 116.7(f) and has determined that the debt is not payable for purposes of the Act.
( c ) *Ongoing committees.* If the political committee making the request is an ongoing committee, the ongoing committee shall make the request in writing and shall demonstrate that the requirements of 11 CFR 116.3, 116.5 or 116.6, as appropriate, and 116.9(a) are satisfied. The Commission will review the request to determine whether the ongoing committee and the creditor have complied with the requirements of 11 CFR part 116, and to determine whether reporting the debt as not payable would result in an apparent violation of the Act or the Commission's regulations. The ongoing committee shall continue to disclose the debt on its schedules of outstanding debts and obligations until the Commission has completed its review of the request and has determined that the debt is not payable for purposes of the Act.
( d ) *Reporting.* Upon notification that the Commission has determined that the debt is not payable for purposes of the Act, the political committee may list the debt as not payable on the next due report. Notwithstanding 11 CFR 104.11, the debt does not have to be included in subsequent reports unless the status of the debt changes. The presence of a debt that the Commission has determined is not payable shall not bar the political committee from terminating its registration pursuant to 11 CFR 102.3.
[55 FR 26386, June 27, 1990, as amended at 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]
Explore the NLS Catalog and BARD (Braille and Audio Reading Download online service) to locate items in NLS's vast collection. Recently added titles use publisher-provided descriptions to make it easier for readers to identify titles of interest.

*Talking Book Topics*, *Braille Book Review*, and *International Language Quarterly* also list selections of titles recently added to the NLS collection. Your network library can help you find more books or select books for you that match your interests. Contact your network library to learn more.

## NLS Catalog

The main NLS Catalog search has many features that make it easy to enjoy our vast collection of audio and braille titles.
      - Optimizes search functionality and speed
      - Directly links to BARD from catalog listings
      - Allows patrons to submit a request to NLS for a title not found in the catalog
      - Makes it easy to create and print book lists
      - Allows patrons to sort search results by date (newest to oldest or oldest to newest)
      - Includes:         - an ask-a-librarian feature, which goes to the NLS Information Services section
        - an email button so patrons can send themselves information about a title
        - optimized searching and cross-searching via links by author, subject, and format
        - the ability to create saved searches
        - automatic search history tabs
        - optimized short and long-form formatting for printing
        - easy-to-find links to the  Find Your Library page  and other NLS resources 

## Text-Only Search (Quick)

      - Offers  Quick ,  Single-Term , and  Multiple-Term  search interfaces for the catalog
      - Includes a  Kids Zone Catalog  for preschoolers through young adults
      - Allows searches for a specific author, title, subject, or keywords – learn more in the  Overview of Text-Only Interface
      - Works well with screen readers

## BARD

The Braille and Audio Reading Download online service has several features that make it easy to search and immediately enjoy our vast collection of audio and braille titles.
      - Optimizes search functionality with subjects, language, and account settings
      - Direct links for download titles immediately or to save to a wish list for future downloading
      - Links to previous downloads and subscriptions to magazines
      - Works with BARD Mobile, BARD Express, and  My Talking Book skill on smart speaker

You can ask your library to help you sign up for BARD, so you can download titles through your computer or directly to your mobile device using the BARD Mobile app. And the latest version of BARD Express allows you to play audio books and magazines on your PC computer. To order titles from the catalog without using BARD, contact your network library and ask them about options for ordering titles by phone, email, or mail.