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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JULIO ZAMUDIO-DIMAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50469

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00911-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Julio Zamudio-Dimas appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Zamudio-Dimas contends that the district court failed to use the correctly

calculated Guidelines range as an initial benchmark at sentencing because it failed

to grant a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We disagree. Departures

are not part of the Guidelines calculation, and we do not review the procedural

correctness of the denial of a requested departure. See United States v.

Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is the pre-departure

Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.”);

United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In analyzing challenges

to a court’s upward and downward departures . . . under Section 5K, we do not

evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part of a sentence’s

substantive reasonableness.”). The district court satisfied its procedural obligations

by correctly calculating the Guidelines range without the fast-track departure.

Zamudio-Dimas also contends that the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence because it did not grant the fast-track departure. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Zamudio-Dimas’s sentence. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence, in the middle of

the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Zamudio-Dimas’s extensive history of immigration violations. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50469
Appeal No. 74-31.

#### Martha Davenport *v.*Bliss Realty, Inc. *et al.*

Matter came on to be heard on a show cause order entered on September 18, 1974. Plaintiff not appearing and no cause being shown, the same is dismissed for failure to *903comply with Rule 16 of the rules of this Court.

*Gunning, LaFazia, Gnys & Selya, Guy J. Wells,*for plaintiff. *John F. Dolan,*for defendants.
EXHIBIT 31.3



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald L. Speer, II, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB on Form 10-KSB/A of Venture Catalyst Incorporated; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



By:

/s/    L. DONALD SPEER, IIL. Donald Speer, II Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: October 21, 2003
Protecting StudentsDisability DiscriminationIssues

*OCR works to ensure that schools give students with disabilities opportunities equal to those provided to students without disabilities to pursue college or careers, by providing equal access to academic and vocational courses, including high-rigor courses.   Additionally, schools must provide equal access to students with disabilities to participate in all aspects of the program, including field trips, extra-curricular activities, and non-academic services.  These obligations apply to colleges as well.*  

----

 

              - Policy Guidance
              - Case Resolutions
              - Publications

### Policy Guidance

*No documents currently available; OCR may include relevant documents on this page in the future.*

 

Please see our Reading Room for a full list of guidance documents on issues related to Disability Discrimination.

### Case Resolutions

- Rockdale County School District (GA) (04-14-1025)    - Read the Resolution Letter    PDF  (173K)
  - Read the Resolution Agreement    PDF  (214K)
- Shenendehowa Central School District (NY)  (02-13-1247)    - Read the Resolution Letter    PDF  (203K)
  - Read the Resolution Agreement    PDF  (85K)
- More Case Resolutions

To access resolution agreements and letters created on or after October 1, 2013 click 	**here**or enter criteria in the search box below:          Keyword(s): Publications
- Equal Access to Comparable Education    PDF  (4MB)

  Last Modified: 01/16/2020
#### Potter *v.*Phillips & Sons.

January 23, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Morris. Fannin superior court. November 18, 1911.

*0. B. Dupree, William Butt,*and *Gober & Jaclcson,*for plaintiff in error. *Thomas Á. Brown,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. Grounds of a motion for a new trial not referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error are considered as abandoned in this court.

2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      56,936,000
<SECURITIES>                                29,131,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              135,639,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,321,000
<INVENTORY>                                 78,836,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           323,514,000
<PP&E>                                     306,978,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             158,304,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             696,800,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      167,943,000
<BONDS>                                     65,646,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 309,573,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               696,800,000
<SALES>                                    338,831,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           346,755,000
<CGS>                                      130,182,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              321,494,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,558,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,261,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,852,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,409,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,409,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2272

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−43)

On August 8, 2011, the Panel transferred 18 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See 802 F.Supp.2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, 141 additional action(s)

have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such

actions have been assigned to the Honorable Rebecca R Pallmeyer.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to

Judge Pallmeyer.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of August 8, 2011, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rebecca R Pallmeyer.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

ery N. Lüthi

k of the Panel

A TRUE COPY-ATTEST

THOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK

 -

By: s/ DOROTHY M. KELLER-FLOWERS

DEPUTY CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 -

March 19, 2012

Mar 07, 2012

Judge: Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Magistrate Judge: Young Kim

Case no.: 12cv1919

Filed: 3/7/12

dmkf
IN RE: ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2272

SCHEDULE CTO−43 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN

CAN 3 12−00499 McNab v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

CAN 3 12−00500 Vallerga v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

NEW YORK NORTHERN

NYN 3 12−00326 Corrigan v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN

NCW 3 12−00086 Cogdill v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

OHIO NORTHERN

OHN 3 12−00336 Little v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

OHIO SOUTHERN

OHS 2 12−00134 Walker v. Zimmer Inc et al

12cv1917

12cv1919

12cv1921

12cv1922

12cv1923

12cv1924
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure 2. Location of sampling sites on the West Coast of the United States. Pacific coast sites include West Coast and Alaskan sites.
### Review of literature on the finite-element solution of the equations of two-dimensional surface-water flow in the horizontal plane

By: Jonathan K. LeeDavid C. Froehlich

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1009

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-13-0003085 

22-JUL-2015 

10:41 AM 

SCWC-13-0003085
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

KURT BOSSHARD, Trustee of the unrecorded


Kurt Bosshard Trust, dated September 9, 1999,


Petitioner/Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

THE THREE STOOGES, LLC, a Hawai'i Limited 


Liability Company; GREG L. ALLEN, SR.,


individually, and GREG L. ALLEN, JR., individually,


Respondents/Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees,
 

and
 

ALLEN FAMILY, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company,


Respondent/Defendant-Counterclaimant, Cross-Claimant-Appellee,
 

and
 

MOLOA'A BAY VENTURES, LLC, a Hawai'i Limited Liability Company,


Respondent/Defendant-Counterclaimant, Cross-Defendant-Appellee,
 

and
 

WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., in his official capacity as Director of


Finance, County of Kaua'i, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-13-0003085; CIV. NO. 12-1-0234)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant
 

Kurt Bosshard’s application for writ of certiorari filed on
 
June 11, 2015, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, July 22, 2015. '

Harold Bronstein 

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

2
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To The
Board of Directors


Fushi
Copperweld, Inc and subsidiaries





We
consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-153014 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-147384 on Form S-3 and to the use of our report dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of Fushi Copperweld,
Inc’s internal control over financial reporting included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.





/S/ Moore
Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP





Walnut,
California





March 16,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>                   THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                           INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NIAGARA CORPORATION
                           AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                           ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                           STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      1,587,927
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               6,185,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                233,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,446,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,240,374
<PP&E>                                      23,762,720
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,113,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,347,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,152,461
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    3,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,560,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,347,815
<SALES>                                     76,827,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            76,827,165
<CGS>                                       65,824,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,824,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            8,013,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,536,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,679,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                615,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,063,860
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,063,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .30


</TABLE>
#### Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company *v.*Hawkinsville and Western Railroad Company.

December 11, 1912.

Petition for injunction. • Before Judge Martin. Pulaski superior court. May 20, 1912.

*John I. Iiall*and *J. E. Hall,*for plaintiff.

*W. L. & Warren Grice*and *II. E. Coates,*for defendant. .

Evans, P. J.

The grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction in this ease rested in the sound discretion of the court, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(a)

[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP LETTERHEAD]


                   CONSENT OF SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



    We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the Prospectus filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 16 to
Form N-4 (File No. 33-43773) for Merrill Lynch Life Variable Annuity Separate
Account A of Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company. In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.


<TABLE>
<S>                                                    <C>  <C>
                                                                 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

                                                                      /s/ KIMBERLY J. SMITH
                                                            -----------------------------------------
                                                                     Kimberly J. Smith, Esq.
</TABLE>

Washington, D.C.

April 24, 2000
# 1

# 2

# 3

# 4

# 5

# 6

# 7

# 8

# 9

# 10

# 11

# 12

# 13

# 14

# 15

# 16

# 17
Exhibit
32(c)


CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  February
      27, 2009
            /s/ James
      H. MillerJames
      H. Miller
              President
              PPL
      Energy Supply, LLC





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,905

EX P ARTE WILL IAM LEE BAUM, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 3669 IN THE 100 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM DONLEY COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with
a child and sentenc ed to ten year s’ imprisonme n t
. T h e S eventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Baum v. State , No. 07-10-00166- CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo J anuar y 4, 2011). A p p licant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive ass is ta n c e b e c a u s e c o u n s e l failed to timely

notify Applicant that his conviction had be en af firmed. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has entered fi n d i n gs of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify2

Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court rec ommends that relief be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the Seventh Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 07-10-00166- CR that aff

irmed his conviction in Cause No. 3669 from the 100 District Court of Donley County
. th Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 31, 2012 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 923 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 923

To exempt certain financial institutions from regulations issued under 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 2017

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt certain financial institutions from regulations issued under 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reforming Finance for Local 
Economies Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM REGULATIONS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``financial 
institution'' means a bank, a credit union, or a savings association, 
as those terms are defined in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301), that has not more 
than $10,000,000,000 in total consolidated assets.
    (b) Exemption.--No regulation issued under the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) or 
any amendment made by that Act shall apply to a financial institution.
                                 <all>
```