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.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ASHLEIGH MARIE GREYBULL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30276

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00013-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ashleigh Marie Greybull appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

theft from an Indian tribal organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1163. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

FILED

OCT 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30276

Greybull contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level

increase for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review the district

court’s characterization of a defendant’s conduct as obstruction de novo. See

United States v. Manning, 704 F.3d 584, 585 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). The

district court imposed the enhancement on the ground that Greybull provided “a

materially false statement to a law enforcement officer that significantly obstructed

or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of [her] offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(G). We conclude that the record is insufficient to support the

enhancement on this basis. First, a false denial of guilt not made under oath cannot

provide a basis for the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.2; United States

v. Beardslee, 197 F.3d 378, 389-90 (9th Cir. 1999). The record does not reflect

which of Greybull’s statements, if any, went beyond a denial of guilt. Second, the

record is inconclusive as to whether the investigation of Greybull’s offense would

have been any different absent her false statements. Accordingly, we cannot

determine whether her statements “obstructed or impeded” the investigation. See

United States v. McNally, 159 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (to provide a basis

for an obstruction of justice enhancement, a false statement to an investigating

officer “must constitute an actual impediment”). 
3 12-30276

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing on an open record. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Faye Comte and Laura Severt, Appellant

No. 06-14-00086-CV v.

Smith County Commissioners Court and 

Joel P. Baker, Cary Nix, Jeff Warr, Joann 

Hampton, and Terry Phillips, each in his or 

her official capacity as a Smith County 

Commissioner, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13-2492-

C). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and 

Justice Burgess participating. Concurring 

Opinion by Justice Burgess. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Faye Comte and Laura Severt, pay all costs of this 

appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 28, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2012089EN.01000201.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/2

---

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 19 December 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

(Case C-1/11 SA)

2012/C 89/02

Language of the case: Italian.

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by G. Cipressa, avvocato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission and authorise him to serve a garnishee order, which may also be in the form, in so far as is legally possible, of an order for the attachment of the assets necessary to cover the claim relating to the debt owed to him by the European Commission, in accordance with the summary payment order issued by the Giudice di pace di Tricase on 1 February 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission and authorise him to serve a garnishee order, which may also be in the form, in so far as is legally possible, of an order for the attachment of the assets necessary to cover the claim relating to the debt owed to him by the European Commission, in accordance with the summary payment order issued by the Giudice di pace di Tricase on 1 February 2010;

| — | serve on the European Commission all necessary documents and, in general, do all this is required by law for the enforcement of the summary payment order and, in general, for the settlement of the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

serve on the European Commission all necessary documents and, in general, do all this is required by law for the enforcement of the summary payment order and, in general, for the settlement of the claim;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, the Commission owes him a sum by way of court expenses. The Commission has not yet paid that debt.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information from the accompanying
     financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001101152
<NAME>                        OnLine Power Supply, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,046,332
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  265,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    186,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,272,463
<PP&E>                                         635,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 132,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,110,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          475,416
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,120
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,562,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,110,159
<SALES>                                        20,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,761
<CGS>                                          28,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,120,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (969,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (969,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (969,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)



</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER CXLIV—NUMU NEWE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1,
2005 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 8, 2005/s/ Robert W. HumphreysRobert W. Humphreys
President & Chief Executive Officer
### §3608. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated from time to time such sums as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Convention and this chapter including—

(1) necessary travel expenses of the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation and sections 5701, 5702, 5704 through 5708, and 5731 of title 5; and

(2) the United States contribution to the Organization as provided in Article 16 of the Convention, not to exceed $50,000 for fiscal year 1983, and not to exceed, for each succeeding fiscal year, the amount assessed by the Organization for the United States for such year.

(Pub. L. 97–389, title III, §309, Dec. 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 1954.)
#### § 25.1 Purpose and authority.

The purpose of this subpart is to establish policies and procedures implementing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536. The Brady Act requires the Attorney General to establish a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to be contacted by any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of firearms for information as to whether the transfer of a firearm to any person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 would be in violation of Federal or state law. The regulations in this subpart are issued pursuant to section 103(h) of the Brady Act, 107 Stat. 1542 (18 U.S.C. 922 note), and include requirements to ensure the privacy and security of the NICS and appeals procedures for persons who have been denied the right to obtain a firearm as a result of a NICS background check performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or a state or local law enforcement agency.
### §403g–1. Exchange of lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept from grantors title to non-Federal land and interests in land, together with improvements thereon, situated within or adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and in exchange therefor, to convey by deed on behalf of the United States to the aforesaid grantors, land or interests therein, together with improvements thereon, situated within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park: Provided, That such exchanges may be made without additional compensation by either party to the exchange when the properties to be exchanged are of approximately equal value; however, when the properties are not of approximately equal value, as may be determined by the Secretary, an additional payment of funds shall be required by the Secretary or by the grantor of non-Federal properties, as the case may be, in order to make an equal exchange, and the Secretary is authorized to use any land acquisition funds relating to the National Park System for such purposes: Provided further, That not more than two hundred acres of park land shall be conveyed pursuant to the aforesaid exchange authority. All properties acquired by the United States pursuant to this section shall become a part of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park upon acquisition thereof. Properties conveyed by the United States pursuant to this section shall thereafter be excluded from the park and any Federal regulation or control thereof for park purposes.

(Pub. L. 85–407, May 16, 1958, 72 Stat. 115.)
§ 24.105 Eligibility of applicants. ( a ) To be eligible for an award of attorney fees and other expenses under the Act, the applicant must be a prevailing party in the adversary adjudication for which it seeks an award. The term “party” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(3). The applicant must show that it meets all conditions of eligibility set out in this subpart and in subpart B.
( b ) The types of eligible applicants are as follows: ( 1 ) An individual with a net worth of not more than $1 million;
( 2 ) The sole owner of an unincorporated business who has a net worth of not more than $5 million and not more than 500 employees;
( 3 ) A charitable or other tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) with not more than 500 employees;
( 4 ) A cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)) with not more than 500 employees; and
( 5 ) Any other partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization with a net worth of not more than $5 million and not more than 500 employees.
( c ) For the purpose of eligibility, the net worth and number of employees of an applicant shall be determined as of the date the adversary adjudication was initiated.
### §3201. Administration of national preserves

A National Preserve in Alaska shall be administered and managed as a unit of the National Park System in the same manner as a national park except as otherwise provided in this Act and except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation. Consistent with the provisions of section 3126 of this title, within national preserves the Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribing such restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agency having responsibility over hunting, fishing, and trapping activities.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIII, §1313, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2483.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

s0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140417

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140417 COA: 286959 Wayne CC: 08-002798-FC BRIAN DANGELO BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
§ 94.20 Importation of meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products derived from bovines from regions of controlled risk for BSE. Meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products, as defined by FSIS in 9 CFR 301.2—except that those terms as applied to bison shall have a meaning comparable to those provided in 9 CFR 301.2 with regard to cattle, and other than boneless skeletal meat that meets the conditions of § 94.18(b)(2)—may be imported from a region of controlled risk for BSE, as defined in § 92.1 of this subchapter, if the following conditions and all other applicable requirements of this part are met: ( a ) The commodities were exported from a region of controlled risk for BSE.
( b ) The commodities were derived from bovines that passed ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections.
( c ) The commodities were derived from bovines that were not subjected to a stunning process, prior to slaughter, with a device injecting compressed air or gas into the cranial cavity, or to a pithing process.
( d ) The commodities were produced and handled in a manner that ensured that such commodities do not contain and are not contaminated with either of the following: ( 1 ) SRMs from regions of controlled risk for BSE; or
( 2 ) Mechanically separated meat from the skull and vertebral column from bovines 30 months of age or older.
( e ) The commodities are accompanied by an original certificate stating that the exporting region is classified by APHIS as a region of controlled risk for BSE, and that the conditions of this section have been met. The certificate must be issued and signed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region, or signed by a person authorized to issue such certificates by the veterinary services of the national government of the exporting region.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0015 and 0579-0393) [78 FR 72999, Dec. 4, 2013]
Proposa l Unde rTh e Smal l Communil yAi rSeiyic e Devd'cr-T^e V Prc^ra m 

## rANSPORTATIO N ;'<c TOPERATION S I^ArtS at M\!H l ^:0M^5fT^l i ^

)Vi}tLi-\H \ 

# mOC T - 1 A I0v2 3 ^flitac o f irprfajeutaltuci i Wimhinifinn

, M 30515-332 3 J-lonorab b Ra yLaHoo d U. S Departmen i o f

Tmttspoimio n 40 0 7l h Strecl . S W Wadtiiigton . DC 2O590 Dear S^retar y 1 jHood : f writ e i n suf^r t

o f th e Cit y c f

Syracu^' s applicalto n li

> II K U S Depitrlinen t

o f TnmtponalJo n Smal l Communil y Atr

Servic e Developmea l (SCASD ) Program , Approv« t cflbi s reques t

woul d serv e a s • ^ron g stimulu s l o r«gi(»i-wid e dTort s t o enhftm^ ai r servic e availabl e a

t Syracus e Hani^ock Imemeiicvia

t Ainw n (SYR l Th e Crty o f

Syracuse , i n collaharaEio n witl i th e Ccnter^t e Coiparatio n fo r Economi c Oppanunit> \hs^applm dfc8-aSI,0(K),00 0 gran t unde r th e program . Th e requestedgran t i s «Mnbine dwith aS3(K}.0Q Q ctHnmitmcR

t frD mth e local bustne n communit y tha t wil l b e use dt o attrac t ne w lo w cos t

ar r 9»Tie e t o Syraci^ e Hancoc k Imemationa l Airpm . A ne w ID U cos t carrie r n despcrtiet y neede dt o reduc e ovo'al l ftres an dimprov e connectiv e t o th e res t o f th e natio n an dinternational de^iniKions . tac k o f affoixlabt e air far e ha s bee n accK^^en t

mi ^ fo r ou r local busines s cwntriBnity . Fundin g At s reques t

wcmi dg o alon g wa

y towar dth e goal s o f

economi c development , increasin g tl K overal l quality o f

ai r travel , an dincreasin g th e oveiai l quality o f lif t i n Ne w Yoiit' s 25* ^ District . Thes e be^wfH

s wil l ^den dfa

r beyon dm

y diitnc t an dt o th e broade r

Cenira l Ne w York

regio i a s awhole . Th e Citjr' K

«|)|^icati( m(jrovtde s detjuil s o n man y o f th e challenge s flicedb j traveler s a t SYR- iiK:reasin g fares . Jiralle dlow^^r e competitHm , an djeqikag c t o (Hho - airporu . I

t als o show $ U

w c^iportimitie s tha

t exis t fo r SVRt o successfull y atnac i «n dsu^nr i addjtkma l k>w-^u r servic e i n di e niariet - I IUKI

Wdiat yo u an dyou r

staf f hav e afirst-han dunderslaniiNngorth e cifcumstance s that currentl y cxiat

s t SYK an dI a|^reciAt e you r

commitmen t

t o improvin g th e qualit y an d aflbrdabilh y o f

ai r lervic c acro s th e cramtiy . 1 whol e Wartedl y believ e ou r a^licatio n wil l assis t yo u i n mcctir ^ you r

goals . I ^fongl y endor % tl % Cit y o f Syracuse' s app4icaiiDn . an dbeliev e w e ir e aperfec t fit fo r th e SCAS D Piogram . Sincerely . «V"'.•'•-'•• • •• ( ,-'l-. K fy , • s^X'i; ' ••'1 ' i . • >••.;•• ' -- • n , • . » ,,. , s.. „

~ , 1, - ,.\^, , •.a n ; k-i. . ^•i».. . "-> ' >.< • • .» > •. [ ''; - IV» ^ s^i^'i; : ".P ^ h . . 'U^l-il'.l-f: ^ b^-..„.J... , i..„-.J l ( 1 !~JilfK X t ^•.1.1' T nn!i<T*,V\ - tfet! " m."* , .;iL<.ii n m i f - l -i-HMif l K ^ Vl^,J^*-,i ; k,. . IV^i, ! I'""i l .X * \ftsi*f i M^fc y,-... . V * 11,i > Ht.( * ii*' ' .'*-'-r-i i r-u - •*' ? 1 !'' • ".I * t '^ 1

Danie l B . Maffei Memb ^ ofCon^cs s

0^:1-2010-012 4
#### Beckwith Havens, Respondent, v. Rochester Ropes, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Close, P. J.," Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur. [179 Misc. 889.]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6840 / April 1, 2022

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of

DF Growth REIT II, LLC

Order Scheduling 

Hearing and Directing 

Prehearing Conference

On March 31, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an 

order directing a hearing in this matter and directing the presiding judge to 

promptly designate a time and place for the hearing, which may be rescheduled 

or adjourned by further order.

I ORDER as follows:

(1) The hearing will take place on Monday, June 6, 2022, at a location to 

be determined in San Diego, CA.

(2) Each party must file with the Commission, and keep current, a notice 

of appearance in accordance with Rule of Practice 102, 17 C.F.R. § 201.102. 

The Division of Enforcement has already filed such a notice. Respondent’s 

counsel should promptly file a notice that contains “the representative’s name, 

business address, email address, and telephone number; and the name, email 

address, and address of the person or persons represented.” 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.102(d)(2).

(3) By April 8, 2022, after having held an initial prehearing conference 

without the hearing officer to discuss each numbered item in Rule of Practice 

221(c), 17 C.F.R. § 201.221(c), the parties shall file a joint prehearing 

conference statement reflecting the results of their conference. That statement 

must: 

(a) address each numbered item in Rule of Practice 221(c), and include 

proposed due dates where applicable (the parties may denote that an item is 

“not applicable” in their filing);
2

(b) propose a procedural schedule that takes into account the hearing 

date scheduled in this order; and

(c) address any issues regarding the date(s), preferred location(s), and 

length of the hearing.

Based on the prehearing statement, a subsequent prehearing conference 

with the hearing officer will be scheduled if appropriate. 

In addition to complying with the Commission’s electronic filing 

requirements, see 17 C.F.R. § 201.152(a), the parties should email courtesy 

copies of any filings in this proceeding in PDF text-searchable format and, 

when possible, in Word format, to alj@sec.gov.

 

/s/ Jason S. Patil

Administrative Law Judge