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). *** The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.JOSE ALVARO AGUILERAMENDOZA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-10332 D.C. No. CR-05-00314-1-FJM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 14, 2010 **

San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
APR 16 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Contrary to Aguilera’s assertions, the district court informed him that pleading guilty would constitute a waiver of his right to have the government prove to a jury the elements of the crime a nd the amount of the drugs charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Thomas , 355 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, Agu ilera admitted personally supplying the charged amount of drugs. See United States v. Lococo , 514 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Nothing in the record supports his contention that his plea was “coerced” by the court or the government. The district court properly overruled A guilera’s objection to the pre-sentence report’s recommended leadership role ad justment, and to the extent Aguilera objected to its calculation of drug quantity, the district court ruled on that issue as well when it reaffirmed its conclusion that 38 was the correct base offense level. Aguilera did not raise any specific factua l disputes regarding either issue that required resolution by the district judge. See United States v. Stoterau , 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, contrary to Aguilera’s asse rtion, the district court gave him sufficient opportunity to allocute. See United States v. Marks , 530 F.3d 799, 813 (9th Cir. 2008). Aguilera points to no authority that says the opportunity to allocute must come at some early stag e in the sentencing proceedings. A judge3 only has to let defendants speak “[b]efore imposing [a] sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A). Aguilera’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED
.
§ 820.31 Initial decision. ( a ) *Initial Decision.* The Presiding Officer shall file an Initial Decision as soon as practicable after the period for filing reply briefs under 820.30 has expired. The Initial Decision shall contain findings of fact, conclusions regarding all material issues of law or discretion, as well as reasons therefor, any remedy and a proposed Final Order. A party may file comments on an Initial Decision within fifteen days of its filing.
( b ) *Amount of civil penalty.* If the Presiding Officer determines that a violation has occurred and that a civil penalty is appropriate, the Initial Decision shall set forth the dollar amount of the civil penalty. If the Presiding Officer decides to assess a penalty different in amount from the penalty assessed in the Final Notice of Violation, the Initial Decision shall set forth the specific reasons for the increase or decrease.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81678-81679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32633]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee; Committee on 
Technology; National Science and Technology Council

ACTION: Notice of Meeting--Public input is requested on the National 
Aeronautics Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) 
Infrastructure Plan.

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

SUMMARY: The Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee (ASTS) of 
the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on 
Technology will hold a public meeting

[[Page 81679]]

to review and discuss the National Aeronautics RDT&E Infrastructure 
Plan. Executive Order (E.O.) 13419--National Aeronautics Research and 
Development--signed December 20, 2006, calls for the development of 
this plan. The plan is guided by both the National Aeronautics Research 
and Development (R&D) Policy and the National Aeronautics Research and 
Development Plan that were developed by the NSTC in consonance with 
E.O. 13419.
    Dates and Addresses: The meeting will be held in conjunction with 
the 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting at the Orlando World Center 
Marriott, 8701 World Center Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 on Friday, 
January 7, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in Crystal Ballroom A. 
Information regarding the 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting is 
available at the: http://www.aiaa.org Web site. Note: Persons solely 
attending this ASTS public meeting do not need to register for the AIAA 
Conference and Exhibit to attend this public meeting. There will be no 
admission charge for persons solely attending the public meeting. 
Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information and links to 
E.O. 13419, the National Aeronautics R&D Policy, the National 
Aeronautics R&D Plan are available by visiting the Office of Science 
and Technology Policy's NSTC Web site at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/aero or by calling 202-456-6012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E.O. 13419 and the National Aeronautics R&D 
Policy call for executive departments and agencies conducting 
aeronautics R&D to engage industry, academia and other non-Federal 
stakeholders in support of government planning and performance of 
aeronautics R&D. At this meeting, ASTS members will review the content 
of the National Aeronautics RDT&E Infrastructure Plan and receive input 
to help inform the future development of national aeronautics R&D 
planning documents.

Ted Wackler,
Deputy Chief of Staff, OSTP.
[FR Doc. 2010-32633 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170-W1-P
#### In the Matter of Joseph A. McCabe, Petitioner, v. Vincent L. Tofany, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The determination of the hearing officer was based upon substantial evidence. Under the circumstances presented here, there is no basis for a finding that the constitutional rights of petitioner were violated. *(People*v. *Gursey,*22 N Y 2d 224; *Matter of Finocchairo*v. *Kelly,*11 N Y 2d 58.) (Review of determination revoking petitioner’s driver’s license, transferred by order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
Form of Clawback Policy Acknowledgement



 Exhibit 10.57 
 FORM OF 
 OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 PERTAINING TO RAYTHEON COMPANY CLAWBACK POLICY 
 The Board of Directors of Raytheon Company (“the Company”) has adopted a Clawback Policy applicable to all of the Company’s elected officers which reads as follows: 
 In addition to any other remedies available to the Company (but subject to applicable law), if the Board determines that it is appropriate,
the Company may recover (in whole or in part) any cash bonus (RBI) payment, any LTPP award and any other award pursuant to any stock plan, whether or not deferred, (any such payment or award referred to as an “incentive payment”) made on
or after January 1, 2009 to an elected officer where: (1) the incentive payment was predicated upon achieving certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a restatement of Company financial statements filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission; (2) the Board determines the executive engaged in knowing or intentional fraudulent or illegal conduct that caused or substantially caused the need for the restatement; and (3) a lower incentive payment
would have been made to the executive based upon the restated financial results. In any such instance, the Company will, to the extent practicable, seek to recover from the individual executive the amount by which the individual executive’s
incentive payments for the relevant period exceeded the lower payment that would have been made based on the restated financial results. 
 I
acknowledge and agree that all future payments under the Results Based Incentive Plan, awards under the Long-Term Performance Plan, and restricted stock awards or other equity awards under any stock plan, in all cases whether or not deferred, are
made to me subject to, and conditioned upon my acceptance of, the provisions of the Clawback Policy; and I further acknowledge and agree that I am not entitled to indemnification or right of advancement of expenses in connection with any enforcement
of the Policy by the Company. 
  

	
	
	 
	(Signature)
	
	 
	(Print Name)
	
	 
	(Title)
[No. 9628.

Department One.

October 9, 1911.]

#### *In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Persons and Estates of*Clyde Guy Sroufe *et al.*Nellie L. Clark *et al., Respondents,*v. Adrian H. Sroufe, *Appellant.*
      *1*

Appeal — Decisions Reviewable — Final Orders — Vacating Judgment. An order vacating an order requiring a guardian to file a new account is not appealable, since it is not a final order.

Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Frater, J., entered January 11, 1911, vacating an order discharging a guardian. Dismissed:

*259
      *L. H. Wheeler,*for appellant.

*Mitchell & Lawrence,*for respondents.

Reported in 118 Pac. 18.

Per Curiam.

— The appellant was appointed guardian of the persons and estates of the minors named in the caption. Thereafter he rendered his final account, and prayed for a settlement thereof and for his discharge as such guardian and that his bond be exonerated. The court entered an order as prayed for. Subsequently the minors filed an application for a vacation of the order of discharge. This application was heard and the order of discharge was vacated. The guardian’s bond was reinstated, and appellant was ordered to file a new account. Afterwards an order was made requiring the guardian to file an additional bond. The guardian has appealed from the order which vacated the order of discharge and the approval of his account and reinstated the original bond.

The respondents move to dismiss this appeal upon the ground, among others, that the order appealed from is not a final or appealable order. This motion must be sustained. We have frequently held that an order vacating a judgment is not an appealable order. *Nelson v. Denny,*26 Wash. 327, 67 Pac. 78; *Sengfelder v. Powell-Sanders Co.,*40 Wash. 686, 82 Pac. 931; *In re Sinclaire’s Estate,*44 Wash. 119, 86 Pac. 1117. The order vacated had no greater force than a judgment, and is not a final appealable order. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 399TH JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETI NGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on October 29, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Cody J. Engel, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00270

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2011CR10556

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our s aid Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with th e seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on December 29, 2014

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez D eputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
#### § 830.6 Recordkeeping.

A contractor must maintain complete and accurate records as necessary to substantiate compliance with the requirements of this part.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Brickner v. James A. Thomas, as Warden of New York City Penitentiary.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted on the ground that the appeal is now moot. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
IV ED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. EARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Laurel Avionics Company, Inc. 

FDMS No. FAA 2015-0202 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

ANSWER 

Pursuant to Rule 209 of the Ru1es of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.209), Respondent answers the 

Administrator's Complaint and states as follows: 

1. Admitted. 

2. Admitted. 

3. Admitted 

4. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny this paragraph. 

5. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny this paragraph. 

6. Admitted. 

7. Admitted. 

8. Denied. 

9. Denied. 

10. Denied. 

11. Denied. 
12. Admitted. 

13. Admitted. 

14. Admitted. 

15. Denied. 

16. Denied. 

17. Denied. 

To the extent not hereinabove denied, Respondent also denies all other allegations in the 

Complaint and specifically denies that there is any merit to the Administrator's allegation that 

Respondent violated any Federal Aviation Regulation and/or that the issuance of a civil penalty 

is required. 

Respectfully submitted, 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Answer were mailed first class, postage prepaid, in 

the matter of Laurel Avionics Company, Inc., FDMS No. FAA 2015-0202, 

this 23rd day of February, 2015, to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

ONE COPY 

Zachary M. Berman Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Counsel for Respondent
#### PLITT v. ILLINOIS SURETY CO.

(No. 6686.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

1. Pleading (§ 238*)—Amendments—Allowance.

Leave to serve an amended or supplemental pleading should not be • granted, unless the motion papers include a copy oí the pleading which it is desired to serve.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 602, 620-625; Dec. Dig. § 238.*]

2. Pleading (§ 239*)—Amendments—Allowance—Conditions.

Substantial terms should be imposed before allowing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, completely changing the cause of action and based on matters which he should have known before the suit was commenced.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 626-635; Dec. Dig. § 239.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Louis Plitt against the Illinois Surety Company. From an order permitting plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, defendant appeals. Order reversed, and motion denied.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

Nelson L. Keach, of. New York City, for appellant.

William Weil, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number In Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

SCOTT, J.

[1] It is a well-established rule, which in our opinion should not be departed from, that no motion for leave to serve an amended or supplemental pleading should be granted, unless the motion papers include a copy of the pleading which it is desired to serve. The only exception to this rule is when the proposed amendment is purely formal and of a character which does not affect the issues. No such *757proposed pleading was served in the present case, and the motion for that reason should have been denied.

[2] Even if the motion papers had been sufficient to warrant the granting of the motion, the terms imposed were quite inadequate. The desired amendment, so far as we can judge of its character by the papers before us, completely changed the cause of action, and this, too, by reason of matters which the plaintiff should have known before the suit was originally commenced. In such a case substantial terms should be imposed.

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, with leave to renew upon proper papers and upon payment of said costs. All concur.
#### MALLORY, Appellant, v. TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by Francis S. Mallory against the-Title Guarantee & Trust Company.

W. H. Black, of New York City, for appellant.

H. Swain, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
*Global Environmental Change and the Carbon Cycle**Can the Global Carbon Budget Be Balanced?
By ***HelaineW. Markewich, Norman B. Bliss, Robert F. Stallard, and Eric T. Sundquist***
The Mississippi Basin Carbon Project of the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) is an effort to examine interactions between theglobal carbon cycle and human-induced changes to the land surface, suchas farming and urbanization. Investigations in the Mississippi River basinwill provide the data needed for calculating the global significance ofland-use changes on land-based carbon cycling. These data are essentialfor predicting and mitigating the effects of global environmental change.

The Mississippi Basin Carbon Project is focused on the third largest river system inthe world. The Mississippi River and its tributaries drain more than 40%of the conterminousUnited States. The basin includes areas that typify vast regions of theEarth's surface that haveundergone human development.*
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 16 

Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued work to serve 

our communities, and supporting their use of body worn cameras to 

promote transparency to protect both citizens and officers alike. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued 

work to serve our communities, and supporting their 

use of body worn cameras to promote transparency to 

protect both citizens and officers alike. 

Whereas the United States Department of Justice issued a 

report titled, ‘‘Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras’’, 

which details a number of benefits of body-worn cameras, 

including— 

(1) increased transparency and citizen views of police legitimacy; 

(2) improved behavior and civility among both police 

officers and citizens; and 

(3) increased evidentiary benefits that expedite resolution of citizen complaints or lawsuits and improving 

evidence for arrest and prosecution; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 16 IH 

Whereas the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology conducted a 12-month study on the use of bodyworn cameras used by law enforcement in the United 

Kingdom and estimated that the cameras led to a 50 percent reduction in use of force, and in addition, complaints 

against police fell approximately by 90 percent: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes all law enforcement agencies and 

3 officers for their tireless work to protect us and 

4 make our communities safer; 

5 (2) recognizes the potential for the use of body6 worn cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers to 

7 improve community relations, increase transparency, 

8 and protect both citizens and police; and 

9 (3) encourages State and local law enforcement 

10 agencies to consider the use of body-worn cameras, 

11 including policies and protocols to handle privacy, 

12 storage, and other relevant concerns. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81204-81205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32305]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collection to ONE for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 10413. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if

[[Page 81205]]

received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be 
addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, 
DC 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-
1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-New. Form Number: N/A.
    Title: USAID Faith-Based and Community Organization Survey.
    Type of Submission: New Information Collection.
    Purpose: The Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 
(CFBCI) supports the commitment from the White House and USAID to 
expand our partnership community by building broad and deep 
relationships with the nongovernmental organization (NGO) community at 
large. In order to better coordinate the Agency's work with NGOs and to 
improve the effectiveness and extent of the Agency's outreach to the 
NGO community, the CFECI is requesting to send out a voluntary 
electronic survey to contacts with NGOs who have previously interacted 
with or expressed interest in working with USAID and the CFBCI. The 
survey will request updated contact and organizational information on 
NGOs working in international development and humanitarian relief 
around the world. By collecting such information, the Agency will be 
able to engage these organizations in a more efficient and less 
duplicative way. In addition, it will allow the Agency to better 
monitor its success in engaging a broad range of NGOs.
    Responding to the survey is optional. An organization's response or 
nonresponse will not have any impact--positive or negative on its 
future relationship with the Agency.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 4,000.
    Total annual responses: 4,000.
    Total annual hours requested: 1,000 hours.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Lynn P. Winston,
Acting Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Management 
Services, Bureau of Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-32305 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
Exhibit 32



                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
          ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Dated: May 12, 2006


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President