alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sealed Documents NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
FIDEL VILLARREAL,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 50067

D.C. No. 3:08

- cr

- 01332

- JAH

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2023 * * Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Fidel Villa r real appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a district court’s denial of compassionate

release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright , 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

NOV 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSSealed Documents 2 22

- 50067

2022). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villar r eal’s motion

for compassionate release. When reviewing motions for compassionate release, a

district court must: (1) “ determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons

warrant a sentence reduction, ” (2) “evaluate whether a reduction would be

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission,” and (3) “consider and weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) to decide whether the requested sentence reduction is warranted under

the particular circumstances of the cas e.” Id. at 945 ( quotation marks and citations

omitted). “ Although a district court must conclude that a defendant satisfies all

three predicates before granting a motion for compassionate release, it may deny

compassionate release if a defendant fails to satisfy any of these grounds. ” Id.

Villarreal’s argument that the district court improperly took judicial notice

of facts in other compassionate release case s in its “extraordinary and compelling

reasons” determination lacks merit. The district court did not take judicial notice of

any facts, but merely, as courts do, cited other cases holding that diagnoses of

hypertension and high cholesterol are not “ extraordinary or compelling reaso ns ”

warranting compassionate release.

Since Villar

r eal raises no other arguments for why the district court abused

its discretion in determining that Villarreal failed to demonstrate “extraordinarySealed Documents 3 22

- 50067

and compelling reasons ” warranting compassionate release
, we need not address

Villar r eal’s remaining arguments

.
AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 7, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 28, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 189 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-65, CP2021-67.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-29317 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEmission FTIR analyses of thin microscopic patches of jet fuel residues deposited on heated metal surfacesThe relationship of fuel stability to fuel composition and the development of mechanisms for deposit formation were investigated. Fuel deposits reduce heat transfer efficiency and increase resistance to fuel flow and are highly detrimental to aircraft performance. Infrared emission Fourier transform spectroscopy was chosen as the primary method of analysis because it was sensitive enough to be used in-situ on tiny patches of monolayers or of only a few molecular layers of deposits which generally proved completely insoluble in any nondestructive solvents. Deposits of four base fuels were compared; dodecane, a dodecane/tetralin blend, commercial Jet A fuel, and a broadened-properties jet fuel particularly rich in polynuclear aromatics. Every fuel in turn was provided with and without small additions of such additives as thiophene, furan, pyrrole, and copper and iron naphthenates.Document ID19860016030Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLauer, J. L.*(Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. Troy, NY, United States)*Vogel, P.*(Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. Troy, NY, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 30, 1986Subject CategoryPropellants And FuelsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-176786NAS 1.26:176786Accession Number86N25502Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-205Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860016030.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
exv10w1



 







EXHIBIT 10.1




AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.

PERFORMANCE-BASED BONUS PLAN

FOR CRAIG H. NEILSEN




PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR 2006




Adopted by the Compensation Committee

of the Board of Directors

March 30, 2006




          For purposes of the Performance-Based Bonus Plan for Craig H. Neilsen (this “Plan”)
for 2006, Mr. Neilsen’s target bonus shall be $925,000 (the “Target Bonus”) and the target
level of Company EBITDA against which Company performance will be measured shall be $257,500,000
(the “EBITDA Target”).




          The Earned Bonus shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula:





	 	•	 	If EBITDA is less than 90.0% of the EBITDA Target, then the Earned Bonus shall equal
zero.
	 
	 	•	 	If EBITDA is at least 90.0% of the EBITDA Target but less than 100.0% of the EBITDA
Target, then the Earned Bonus shall be calculated as follows:






	 	o	 	Earned Bonus = $925,000 — $0.03592233 for every $1.00 by which
Company EBITDA is less than $257,500,000.






	 	•	 	If EBITDA equals exactly 100.0% of the EBITDA Target, then the Earned Bonus shall
equal the Target Bonus (i.e., $925,000).
	 
	 	•	 	If EBITDA is greater than 100.0% of the EBITDA Target but less than 110.0% of the
EBITDA Target, then the Earned Bonus shall be calculated as follows:






	 	o	 	Earned Bonus = $925,000 + $0.03592233 for every $1.00 of EBITDA
achieved by the Company in excess of $257,500,000.






	 	•	 	If EBITDA is 110.0% of the EBITDA Target or greater, then the Earned Bonus shall
equal 200% of the Target Bonus (i.e., $1,850,000).
### §488g. Preemption of other laws

#### (a) Other Federal regulations

Except as provided in section 488f of this title, nothing in this part affects any regulation issued by any agency other than an agency of the Department.

#### (b) State law

Subject to section 488f of this title, this part preempts the laws of any State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this part, except that this part shall not preempt any State law that provides additional protection against the acquisition of ammonium nitrate by terrorists or the use of ammonium nitrate in explosives in acts of terrorism or for other illicit purposes, as determined by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §899H, as added Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title V, §563(a), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2089.)
No. 799.

#### Christian Tjosevig et al. *v.*T. J. Donohoe et al.

April 19, 1920.

*Mr. John Rustgard*for petitioners.

*Mr. Edmund Smith*for respondents.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.B


                            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-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2004, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Director, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                                /s/ Greg G. Gruber
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Greg G. Gruber
                                           Senior Vice President, Chief
                                           Financial Officer, Treasurer
                                             and Director
                                           (Principal Financial
                                             and Accounting Officer)

                                           August 13, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural
Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### (A) Carol Jagiello, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Natalie Jagiello, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Joseph Jagiello et al., Defendants, and Edwin T. Jagiello et al., Appellants. (B) John Laskoski, Respondent, v. Waldo S. De Mers, Appellant. (C) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Cohen, Appellant. (D) The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. W. Roger Pratt, Respondent.

[In each case] Order of dismissal for failure to prosecute entered pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
### §2009cc–7. Operational assistance grants

#### (a) In general

In accordance with this section, the Secretary may make grants to rural business investment companies and to other entities, as authorized by this subchapter, to provide operational assistance to smaller enterprises financed, or expected to be financed, by the entities.

#### (b) Terms

Grants made under this section shall be made over a multiyear period (not to exceed 10 years) under such terms as the Secretary may require.

#### (c) Use of funds

The proceeds of a grant made under this section may be used by the rural business investment company receiving the grant only to provide operational assistance in connection with an equity or prospective equity investment in a business located in a rural area.

#### (d) Submission of plans

A rural business investment company shall be eligible for a grant under this section only if the rural business investment company submits to the Secretary, in such form and manner as the Secretary may require, a plan for use of the grant.

#### (e) Grant amount

#### (1) Rural business investment companies

The amount of a grant made under this section to a rural business investment company shall be equal to the lesser of—

(A) 10 percent of the private capital raised by the rural business investment company; or

(B) $1,000,000.

#### (2) Other entities

The amount of a grant made under this section to any entity other than a rural business investment company shall be equal to the resources (in cash or in kind) raised by the entity in accordance with the requirements applicable to rural business investment companies under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §384H, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6029, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 395.)
#### Armando Martino et al., Respondents, v. Sam Cohen, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion by appellant for a stay pending appeal granted by default, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph W. Erlwein, Appellant, v. William H. Cantey et al., Defendants, and Vera Walls et al., Respondents.

— In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law to bar defendants from any claim in land purchased by plaintiff at a sale for unpaid taxes, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 8, 1960, which, *inter alia,*denies his motion for summary judgment, striking out the answer of the defendant R. W. Wallace, Jr., Inc.; denies plaintiff’s motion for renewal of his said motion for summary judgment; and grants the cross motion of the defendant Vera Walls to the extent of substituting her as a party defendant in place of the defendant R. W. Wallace, Jr., Inc. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Christ, J., not voting.
### §1521. Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Agency

The term "agency" has the meaning given the term in section 3502 of title 44.

#### (2) Agency information system

The term "agency information system" has the meaning given the term in section 660 of this title.

#### (3) Appropriate congressional committees

The term "appropriate congressional committees" means—

(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.

#### (4) Cybersecurity risk; information system

The terms "cybersecurity risk" and "information system" have the meanings given those terms in section 650 of this title.

#### (5) Director

The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

#### (6) Intelligence community

The term "intelligence community" has the meaning given the term in section 3003(4) of title 50.

#### (7) National security system

The term "national security system" has the meaning given the term in section 11103 of title 40.

#### (8) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. N, title II, §222, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2963; Pub. L. 115–278, §2(h)(1)(D), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4182; Pub. L. 117–263, div. G, title LXXI, §7143(d)(1)(A), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3663.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this subtitle", meaning subtitle B (§§221–229) of title II of div. N of Pub. L. 114–113, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of subtitle B to the Code, see Tables.

#### Amendments

2022—Par. (4). Pub. L. 117–263 substituted "section 650 of this title" for "section 659 of this title".

2018—Par. (2). Pub. L. 115–278, §2(h)(1)(D)(i), substituted "section 660 of this title" for "section 149 of this title, as added by section 223(a)(4) of this division".

Par. (4). Pub. L. 115–278, §2(h)(1)(D)(ii), substituted "section 659 of this title" for "section 148 of this title, as so redesignated by section 223(a)(3) of this division".
### SUBCHAPTER III—EMERGENCY AND PRIVATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
#### Frank J. Smithie, appellee, v. Mack-International Motor Truck Corporation, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,262.

Action for use of plaintiff's truck and for damages thereto. Judgment for plaintiff; Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joel C. Pitch, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellant; Clyde E.

Shorey and Fred Barth, of counsel. Marshall E. Gallion, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice 0 ’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §563a. Acquisition justification and reports

#### (a) Acquisition justification

Before the Administration implements any security-related technology acquisition, the Administrator, in accordance with the Department's policies and directives, shall determine whether the acquisition is justified by conducting an analysis that includes—

(1) an identification of the scenarios and level of risk to transportation security from those scenarios that would be addressed by the security-related technology acquisition;

(2) an assessment of how the proposed acquisition aligns to the Plan;

(3) a comparison of the total expected lifecycle cost against the total expected quantitative and qualitative benefits to transportation security;

(4) an analysis of alternative security solutions, including policy or procedure solutions, to determine if the proposed security-related technology acquisition is the most effective and cost-efficient solution based on cost-benefit considerations;

(5) an assessment of the potential privacy and civil liberties implications of the proposed acquisition that includes, to the extent practicable, consultation with organizations that advocate for the protection of privacy and civil liberties;

(6) a determination that the proposed acquisition is consistent with fair information practice principles issued by the Privacy Officer of the Department;

(7) confirmation that there are no significant risks to human health or safety posed by the proposed acquisition; and

(8) an estimate of the benefits to commercial aviation passengers.

#### (b) Reports and certification to Congress

#### (1) In general

Not later than the end of the 30-day period preceding the award by the Administration of a contract for any security-related technology acquisition exceeding $30,000,000, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives—

(A) the results of the comprehensive acquisition justification under subsection (a); and

(B) a certification by the Administrator that the benefits to transportation security justify the contract cost.

#### (2) Extension due to imminent terrorist threat

If there is a known or suspected imminent threat to transportation security, the Administrator—

(A) may reduce the 30-day period under paragraph (1) to 5 days to rapidly respond to the threat; and

(B) shall immediately notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives of the known or suspected imminent threat.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title XVI, §1612, as added Pub. L. 113–245, §3(a), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2873.)
Order entered April 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00825-CV

CARL BENSON, Appellant

V.

JPMORGAN CHASE, Appellee

and

No. 05-12-00943-CV

CARL BENSON, Appellant

V.

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. DC-10-11135-F and DC-12-0677

ORDER

Because a review of the clerk’s records in these appeals reveals the two appeals are the 

same, we CONSOLIDATE, on our own motion, appellate cause number 05-12-00943-CV into 

cause 05-12-000825-CV. The parties shall now use only cause number 05-12-00825-CV when 

referencing the appeal.
We note appellant’s amended brief is overdue. In light of this order, we extend 

appellant’s time for filing his amended brief and ORDER appellant’s brief be filed within thirty 

days of the date of this order. Appellant is cautioned that failure to comply may result in this 

appeal being dismissed without further notice.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
### §308701. Policy

It shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in partnership with the States and local governments and private organizations and individuals, to—

(1) use measures, including financial and technical assistance, to foster conditions under which our modern society and our historic maritime resources can exist in productive harmony;

(2) provide leadership in the preservation of the historic maritime resources of the United States;

(3) contribute to the preservation of historic maritime resources and give maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals undertaking preservation by private means; and

(4) assist State and local governments to expand their maritime historic preservation programs and activities.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3237.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 308701 | 16 U.S.C. 5402. | Pub. L. 103–451, §3, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4770. |

Section
#### § 536.90 Statutory authority for the Non-Scope Claims Act.

The statutory authority for this subpart is set forth in the Act of October 1962, 10 U.S.C. 2737, 76 Stat. 767, commonly called the “Non-Scope Claims Act (NSCA).”
#### Fred J. Dornseif, appellee, v. David Levi, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,321.

Action for slander. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David M. Brothers, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Rehearing denied May 13, 1925.

Jacob G. Grossberg, for appellant.

John E. Crahen, for appellee; Frank M. Padden, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice O ’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.