alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSHUA ANTONE B ANGAWAN FER NANDEZ, a .k.a . j_m an89, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50231

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00721-R M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Joshua Antone B anga

wan Fe rnande z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha l le nge s the 20-y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se and m andatory drug-te sting c o ndition im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for distribution 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).of c hild pornogra phy , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(2)(A) a n d (b)(1). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Fe rnande z c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to c o nside r and a ddre s s his m itiga

ting a rgum e nts a

n d, a s a re sult, im pose d a substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble te rm of supe rvise d re le a se . The re c ord shows tha t the distric t c ourt did not proc e dura lly

e rr and the 20-y e a

r te rm is substa ntive l y re a sona

ble in light of the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s a nd the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se nte nc i ng fa c tors. Se e Unite d State

s v . Apodac a , 641 F.3d 1077, 1082-84 (9th C ir. 2011). Fe rnande z ne xt c o nte nds tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in im posing the m andatory

c ondition of drug te sting a s pa rt of his supe rvise d re l e a se . B e c a use Fe rnan de z did not obje c t to this c ondition in the distric t c ourt, we re vie w for pla in e rror, se e Unite d State

s v . Garc ia , 522 F.3d 855, 860 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd find none . Drug te sting is a

m andatory

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d). Although Fe

rnande zdoe s not ha

ve a history of drug use an d drugs did not pla y a role in the offe nse , the distric t c o urt prope rly im pose d this c ondition be c a use the re is no e vide nc e h e ha s a low risk of futuresubsta

nc e a buse . Se e Unite d State s v . J a c k s on , 189 F.3d 820, 825 (9th C ir. 1999). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 0 2 3 1 2
Exhibit
10.2


 


July
23, 2007


 


 


Kurt
Kalbfleisch


 


Dear
Kurt;


 


On
behalf of Overland Storage, Inc., I am pleased to offer you a promotion to the position
of Vice President, Finance. In this role you will continue to report to me. The
terms for the position are as follows:


 


	
  Effective
  date:

  	
  July
  23, 2007

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Base
  Compensation:

  	
  $7,692.31
  gross biweekly, which is equal to $200,000 annually.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Stay
  Bonus:

  	
  $40,000
  gross payable at the rate of $10,000 per quarter (10/23/07, 1/23/08, 4/23/08
  and 7/23/08) based on continued employment on each quarterly date.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Stock
  Options:

  	
  You
  will be offered a stock option grant to be determined and approved at the
  next Board of Directors meeting on or about August 7, 2007.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Retention
  Agreement:

  	
  You
  will receive the company’s standard Retention Agreement which provides for
  the payment of one year of severance if you are terminated within two years
  of a change of control.

  



 


 


If
you choose to accept this position, please note that your employment with
Overland Storage, Inc. continues to be at-will with no specified period or term
of employment.


 


Please
indicate your acceptance of the foregoing terms by signing below and returning
this letter to Human Resources.


 


Sincerely,


 


	
  /s/
  Vernon A. LoForti

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Vernon
  A. LoForti

  
	
  Vice
  President and

  
	
    Chief
  Financial Officer

  



 


	
  Acceptance:

  	
      /s/
  Kurt Kalbfleisch

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
      Kurt
  Kalbfleisch

  



 


	
  Date:

  	
  July
  24, 2007

  	
   

  



 


By signing, I understand and acknowledge the terms
of this offer.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

465 

KA 15-00852 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CODY TESTERMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL

J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.

William Boller, A.J.), rendered April 17, 2014. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 125.20 [1]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right

to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the

sentence. First, “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the

course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to

appeal his conviction’ that he was also waiving his right to appeal

any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Lorenz,

119 AD3d 1450, 1450, lv denied 24 NY3d 962; see People v Maracle, 19

NY3d 925, 928). Second, “ ‘[a]lthough the record establishes that

defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal, there was

no colloquy between [Supreme] Court and defendant regarding the waiver

of the right to appeal to ensure that’ defendant was aware that it

encompassed his challenge to the severity of the sentence” (People v

Avellino, 119 AD3d 1449, 1449-1450; see generally People v Bradshaw,

18 NY3d 257, 264-266). We nevertheless conclude that the negotiated

sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We note that defendant

stabbed the victim more than 20 times, including 18 times in his face,

throat, and stomach, thereby causing his death. Although charged with

murder in the second degree, defendant was allowed to plead guilty to

manslaughter in the first degree with the understanding that he would 
-2- 465 

KA 15-00852 

receive the agreed-upon sentence. 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean TDS

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0

4 803 750 791 505

5 740 657 677 434

6 750 684 724 463

7 748 645 697 447

8 644 589 614 395

9 608 577 585 378

10 642 611 625 402

11 621 570 597 385

12 577 559 569 368

13 559 494 537 348

14 546 492 515 334

15 565 547 557 360

16 567 563 565 365

17 571 556 566 366

18 606 562 576 372

19 717 606 641 412

20 713 624 645 415

21 622 561 594 383

22 558 535 541 350

23 603 537 559 361

24 677 613 653 420

25 700 643 669 429

26 641 565 605 390

27 564 540 554 358

28 557 538 545 353

29 551 547 549 355

30 557 542 546 353

31 620 559 583 376

Total 16879

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Delta Mendota Canal At Check 20 

Period: May 2022 Run Date: 11/22/2022
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

Dated: January 10, 2011.

Thomas K. Emswiler,

Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2011-719 Filed 1-11-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### Max Sanders, Respondent, v. I. A. Wyner & Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6942

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE BONNIWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-7402

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE BONNIWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-40, CA-97-652)

Submitted: November 23, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999
2

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 99-6942 dismissed and No. 99-7402 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Bonniwell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 99-6942, Robert Lee Bonniwell seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bonniwell, Nos. CR-96-40; CA-97-652 (E.D. Va. May 12, 1999).

In No. 99-7402, Bonniwell appeals the district court’s order

denying his request for a certificate of appealability. As we

conclude that Bonniwell has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a federal right, we affirm the district court’s ruling.

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (West Supp. 1999). 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.

No. 99-6942 - DISMISSED

No. 99-7402 - AFFIRMED
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5053 

AN ACT 

To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by 

prisoners, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5053 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Juveniles 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF JUVENILES FROM THE REQUIRE5 MENTS FOR SUITS BY PRISONERS. 

6 Section 7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Per7 sons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘sentenced 

9 for, or adjudicated delinquent for,’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘or sentenced for’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(i) EXEMPTION OF JUVENILE PRISONERS.—This 

13 section shall not apply to an action pending on the date 

14 of enactment of the Justice for Juveniles Act or filed on 

15 or after such date if such action is— 

16 ‘‘(1) brought by a prisoner who has not at17 tained 22 years of age; or 

18 ‘‘(2) brought by any prisoner with respect to a 

19 prison condition that occurred before the prisoner 

20 attained 22 years of age.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5053 

AN ACT 

To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits 

by prisoners, and for other purposes.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18289-18290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7809]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12507 and <greek-i>12508]


New Mexico Disaster <greek-i>NM-00020

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-
1962-DR), dated 03/24/2011.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Extreme Cold Temperatures.
    Incident Period: 02/01/2011 through 02/05/2011.
    Effective Date: 03/24/2011.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/23/2011.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/27/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/24/2011, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Lincoln, Otero, Rio Arriba, Sierra, Socorro, Taos and 
the Tribal jurisdictions of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, Santa Ana 
Pueblo, Taos Pueblo, and the portions of Santa Clara Pueblo that lie 
entirely within Rio Arribe County.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.250

[[Page 18290]]

 
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12507B 
and for economic injury is 12508B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-7809 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### §758e–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–386, title I, §102, Aug. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 821

Section, Pub. L. 92–444, §5, formerly §4, Sept. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 745; Pub. L. 94–273, §2(10), Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 375; Pub. L. 94–343, §1(2), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 809; renumbered Pub. L. 95–295, §1(4), June 16, 1978, 92 Stat. 319, related to submission to President and Congress of annual report by Secretary on Central, Western, and South Pacific Ocean fisheries development program.
### [§284. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–849, §2, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126]

Section, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 698; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §7, 63 Stat. 90, related to disqualifications of former officers and employees in matters connected with former duties. Section was supplanted by section 207 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 90 days after Oct. 23, 1962, see section 4 of Pub. L. 87–849, set out as an Effective Date note under section 201 of this title.
### §1386. Keys and keyways used in security applications by the Department of Defense

(a)(1) Whoever steals, purloins, embezzles, or obtains by false pretense any lock or key to any lock, knowing that such lock or key has been adopted by any part of the Department of Defense, including all Department of Defense agencies, military departments, and agencies thereof, for use in protecting conventional arms, ammunition or explosives, special weapons, and classified information or classified equipment shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(2) Whoever—

(A) knowingly and unlawfully makes, forges, or counterfeits any key, knowing that such key has been adopted by any part of the Department of Defense, including all Department of Defense agencies, military departments, and agencies thereof, for use in protecting conventional arms, ammunition or explosives, special weapons, and classified information or classified equipment; or

(B) knowing that any lock or key has been adopted by any part of the Department of Defense, including all Department of Defense agencies, military departments, and agencies thereof, for use in protecting conventional arms, ammunition or explosives, special weapons, and classified information or classified equipment, possesses any such lock or key with the intent to unlawfully or improperly use, sell, or otherwise dispose of such lock or key or cause the same to be unlawfully or improperly used, sold, or otherwise disposed of,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(3) Whoever, being engaged as a contractor or otherwise in the manufacture of any lock or key knowing that such lock or key has been adopted by any part of the Department of Defense, including all Department of Defense agencies, military departments, and agencies thereof, for use in protecting conventional arms, ammunition or explosives, special weapons, and classified information or classified equipment, delivers any such finished or unfinished lock or any such key to any person not duly authorized by the Secretary of Defense or his designated representative to receive the same, unless the person receiving it is the contractor for furnishing the same or engaged in the manufacture thereof in the manner authorized by the contract, or the agent of such manufacturer, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(c) As used in this section, the term "key" means any key, keyblank, or keyway adopted by any part of the Department of Defense, including all Department of Defense agencies, military departments, and agencies thereof, for use in protecting conventional arms, ammunition or explosives, special weapons, and classified information or classified equipment.

(Added Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, §1090(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1485.)
(No. 77-CC-2458

#### Delbert Scott, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 18, 1978.*

Polos, J.C.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

The record establishes that on July 26,1977, Claimant was in possession of a Panasonic AM FM radio and tape player, and a television set. These items had been purchased in November, 1976, and September, 1975, respectively, for a total of $194.00. On July 26, 1977, Claimant was taken from the Stateville Correctional Center to St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet, Illinois, and prison authorities took possession of the aforesaid property. The items were not returned to Claimant upon his return from the hospital.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.

*757While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*The Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d 172, at 174,*as follows;

> “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $194.00.
Table of Board Compensation for the Directors of The Phoenix Companies, Inc.


 EXHIBIT 10.39 
  

				
	 Board Compensation Schedule
 to be effective January 1, 2008

		
	 Board Retainer - all members
	  	$	132,500
		
	 Additional Retainers:
	  		
	 – Committee Retainer – Executive Committee Chair
	  	$	35,000
	 – Committee Retainer – Audit Chair
	  	$	30,000
	 – Committee Retainer – Compensation Chair
	  	$	25,000
	 – Committee Retainer – Other Chair
	  	$	20,000
	 – Committee Retainer – PLIC Policyholder Affairs Chair
	  	$	10,000
	 – Committee Retainer – Audit Non-Chair
	  	$	6,250
	 – Committee Retainer – Compensation Non-Chair
	  	$	3,750
	
	 A new meeting fee in the amount of $1,500 per meeting for attendance at each Board and/or Committee meeting held in excess of the number of meetings
anticipated for any calendar year.

		
	All retainers and the new meeting fee to be paid 50/50 cash/RSUs
### §3006. Assignment of counsel—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Appointment by court, rule 44.

Accused to be informed of right to counsel, rules 5 and 44.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 814.)