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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

DANIEL AARON MILLER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 10117

D.C. No.

4:09

- cr

- 02292

- RM

- BGM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Aaron Miller appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges seven conditions of supervised release imposed on revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the

district court’s judgment and remand for it to reconsider special condition 6, and to

* 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 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 10117

correct the judgment with respect to special conditions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10.

S pecial condition 6, which restricts Miller from having contact with minor

children without prior approval

, is subject to heightened procedural requirements

because it implicates Miller’s right to associate with his minor child

. See United

States v. Wolf Child , 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)

. As the government

concedes, the district court plainly erred by failing to provide sufficient

justif ication for the condition

. See id. at 1092 (“[T]he sentencing court, at the time

it imposes the restrictive condition on the exercise of a particularly sig nificant

liberty interest, must itself point to the evidence in the record on which it relies and

explain how on the basis of that evidence the particular restriction is justified.”)

.

Accordingly , we vacate special condition 6 and remand to allow the dist rict court

to provide the required explanation for why the condition should apply to Miller’s

son or to exempt his son from the condition

.

Miller also challenges special conditions of supervised release 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,

and 10. As the government concedes

, the court’s oral pronouncement of these

conditions conflicts with the written judgment. We, therefore, remand to the

district court to enter a corrected written judgment consistent with the court’s oral

pronouncement of the sentence. See Un it ed States v. Hernandez , 795 F.3d 1159,

1169 (9th Cir. 2015)

.

In light of this disposition, Miller’s motion for summary reversal and3 21

- 10117

remand is denied as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED

.
#### § 304-3.17 If I am required to file a confidential or public financial disclosure report, must I report travel payments I receive from a non-Federal source on that report?

Generally, no. As long as payments you receive from a non-Federal source are made to or on behalf of your agency, you are not required to report them as gifts on any confidential or public disclosure report you are personally required to file pursuant to law or Office of Government Ethics (OGE) regulations ([5 CFR part 2634](/on/2024-09-20/title-5/part-2634)). However, you may be required to report any such payments that you and/or your accompanying spouse receive on your own behalf, rather than on the agency's behalf, pursuant to other reporting requirements (e.g., those required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978).

Note:

The confidential financial disclosure report is OGE Form 450 and the public financial disclosure report is SF 278.
§ 102-74.590 What steps must agencies take to implement these laws and policies? ( a ) As interpreted by OPM Memorandum to agencies (February 9, 2001), Public Law 106-346 instructs Federal agencies to— ( 1 ) Review telework barriers, act to remove them, and increase actual participation;
( 2 ) Establish eligibility criteria; and
( 3 ) Subject to any applicable agency policies or bargaining obligations, allow employees who meet the criteria and want to participate the opportunity if they are satisfactory performers.
( b ) 40 U.S.C. 587 requires agencies considering the acquisition of facilities for use by Federal employees to consider whether the facility need can be met using alternative workplace arrangements, such as telecommuting, hoteling, virtual offices, and other distributive work arrangements. If the agency needs assistance in this investigation and/or subsequent application of alternative workplace arrangements, GSA will provide guidance, assistance, and oversight, as needed, regarding establishment and operation of alternative workplace arrangements.
( c ) Agencies evaluating alternative workplace arrangements should also make these evaluations in coordination with Integrated Workplace policies and strategies. See § 102-79.110.
No. 10-11095.

#### Martinez-Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. '9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11198.

#### Felder *v.*Sevier, Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 20-1473: TAYLOR v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

 Defendants.

NOTICE OF 90 DAYS EXPIRING

Plaintiff Kenneth C. Griffin (“Mr. Griffin”) respectfully provides notice, pursuant to Local 

Rule 7.1(b)(4), that more than 90 days have elapsed since the parties completed briefing on the

Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In accordance with Local 

Rule 7.1(b)(4), Mr. Griffin submits the following: 

• The United States’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint was filed and 

served on November 27, 2023 (ECF 58); 

• Mr. Griffin’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint was 

filed and served on December 11, 2023 (ECF 74); 

• The United States’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss was filed and served 

on December 18, 2023 (ECF 78); 

• This Court did not hold a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. 

Dated: April 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

William A. Burck (pro hac vice)

Derek L. Shaffer (pro hac vice)

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 1 of 3
2

Alexander J. Merton (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 538-8334

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com

ajmerton@quinnemanuel.com

John F. Bash (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

300 West 6th St, Suite 2010

Austin, TX 78701

(737) 667-6100

johnbash@quinnemanuel.com

Jason D. Sternberg (Florida Bar No. 72887)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

2601 South Bayshore Dr, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

(305) 402-4880

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Christopher D. Kercher (pro hac vice)

Peter H. Fountain (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,

New York, New York 10010

(212) 849-7000 

christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

peterfountain@quinnemanuel.com

Counsel to Plaintiff Kenneth C. Griffin

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 1st day of April, 2024, I filed a copy of the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send 

notification to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

Jason D. Sternberg

Fla. Bar. No. 72887

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2024 Page 3 of 3
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: **2013 -**  **NM -**  **0 49**  **- AD**  **Costs:** Labor per airplane (4 work hour(s) x $8 5 /hour) $ 340 Parts per airplane $ 0 Cost per airplane $340 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 3,060 Total fleet cost $ 27,540 **Exe cutive Order 12866:**  Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, whe re aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
IB

Union Calendar No. 20

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 661

[Report No. 106–35]

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial operation

of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply with stage

3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft noise regulations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. DUNCAN, and

Mr. HORN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

MARCH 2, 1999

Additional sponsors: Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr.

METCALF, and Mr. GEJDENSON

MARCH 2, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the

commercial operation of supersonic transport category

aircraft that do not comply with stage 3 noise levels

if the European Union adopts certain aircraft noise regulations.
2

•HR 661 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC

4 TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

5 If the European Union adopts Common Position

6 (EC) No. 66/98 as a final regulation or adopts any similar

7 final regulation, the Secretary of Transportation shall pro8 hibit, after such date of adoption, the commercial oper9 ation of a civil supersonic transport category aircraft to

10 or from an airport in the United States unless the Sec11 retary finds that the aircraft complies with stage 3 noise

12 levels.

Union Calendar No. 20

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 661

[Report No. 106–35]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to proadopts certain aircraft noise regulations. with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union transport category aircraft that do not comply hibit the commercial operation of supersonic

MARCH 2, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed.
# Comments on: 21-2257: ZHEJIANG MACHINERY IMPORT & EXPORT CORP. v. US [OPINION], Precedential
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 681

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

subpart F exemption for active financing income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. MCCRERY (for himself, Mr. SHAW, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr.

KLECZKA, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. NEAL of

Massachusetts, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. MATSUI, Ms. DUNN, Mr. CRANE, Mr.

HULSHOF, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. HOUGHTON, and Mr. WELLER) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME.

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income
2

•HR 681 IH

1 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or

2 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).

3 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (a) of sec4 tion 953 of such Code (defining insurance income) is

5 amended by striking paragraph (10) and by redesignating

6 paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

8 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor9 poration beginning after December 31, 1998, and to tax10 able years of United States shareholders with or within

11 which such taxable years of such foreign corporation end.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

May 29, 2018 

s0521 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 29, 2018 

156046 & (14) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156046 

 COA: 336730 

Clinton CC: 12-008989-FC 

RHYON DRAMON WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED. 

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 759 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 759

              For the relief of Robert and Verda Shatusky.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Robert and Verda Shatusky.

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

SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY, SURVIVOR BENEFITS, AND 
              OTHER PAYMENTS UNDER RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1974.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Railroad Retirement Act of 
1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.), Robert Shatusky, of Menominee, Michigan, 
shall be deemed to have had a current connection with the railroad 
industry at the time that his annuity under section 2(a)(1) of such Act 
began to accrue.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to any month that 
begins more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAST SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY BENEFITS.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Robert Shatusky of Menominee, 
Michigan, a sum that equals the total amount of any supplemental 
annuity payments to which Robert Shatusky would have been entitled 
under section 2(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 
231a(b)) if section 1(a) of this Act applied to the period beginning on 
the date on which his annuity under section 2(a)(1) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)) began to accrue and 
ending on the last day of the month preceding the 1st month to which 
section 1(a) of this Act applies.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 2 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person who violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and 
shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 302-3.216 When must I begin my first tour renewal travel from Alaska or Hawaii?

You must begin your first tour renewal travel within 5 years of your first consecutive tours in either Alaska or Hawaii.
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of Fluor Corporation Non-Management Director Compensation

 

Cash Compensation

 

	
Annual Retainer:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
120,000
    	
 
    
	
Annual Committee   Chair Retainer:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit Committee   Chair:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
20,000
    	
 
    
	
Organization and   Compensation Committee Chair:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
15,000
    	
 
    
	
Governance   Committee Chair:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
15,000
    	
 
    
	
Lead Independent   Director Retainer:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
30,000
    	
 
    
	
Non-Committee   Chair Members of the Executive Committee:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    


 

Retainers are paid quarterly in cash and can be deferred at the director’s election under the Fluor Corporation 409A Director Deferred Compensation Program (the “Deferred Compensation Program”). Effective January 1, 2013, directors no longer receive a 25% premium on the deferred amount deemed invested in company stock via the Deferred Compensation Program.

 

Equity Compensation

 

Each non-management director receives an annual grant of restricted stock units with a total market value of $150,000. The grant is made on the date of the annual meeting of shareholders. Restrictions on annual grants vest immediately on the first anniversary of the date of grant.  Directors can defer such units at their election under the Deferred Compensation Program.

 

Other Information

 

Fluor Corporation reimburses non-management directors for their travel and related expenses in connection with attending Board meetings and Board-related activities. Directors also receive life insurance ($75,000 in coverage) and business travel accident insurance ($250,000 in coverage). Directors’ charitable contributions that meet the guidelines of the Company’s employee charitable matching gift program are eligible for matching funds from the Company in an amount up to $5,000 per year.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-52704, 333-52716, 333-59795 and333-29745) and Form S-3 (No.’s 333-87103, 333-68197, 333-52971, and 333-47777) of Daou Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 2004, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Daou Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 29, 2004
No. 11-1057.

#### Weaver *v.*Texas Capital Bank N. A.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vsource, Inc. (the registrant) for the year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, Phillip E. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:



|(1) |  | The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|

|(2) |  | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 30, 2004



By:/S/ Phillip E. Kelly

Phillip E. Kelly

Chief Executive Officer



This
certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant
specifically incorporates it by reference.
No. 10-11177.

#### Allen *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9445.

#### Fenderson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 128-1.101 Justice Property Management Regulations.

The JPMR, established in this subpart, implement and supplement, as necessary, the FPMR provisions governing the acquisition, utilization, management, and disposal of real and personal property. The JPMR are issued to establish uniform property management policies, regulations, and, as necessary, procedures in the Department of Justice.
Exhibit 10.17


 


Hydra Industries Acquisition Corp.


250 West 57th Street, Suite 2223


New York, New York 10107


 


December 23, 2016


 


Mr. Luke Alvarez


 


Dear Mr. Alvarez:


 


We understand that a cash
payment in the amount of £2,400,000 will become contractually due to you from Inspired Gaming (Gibraltar) Limited (“IG(G)”)
as a result of the consummation of the acquisition and other transactions contemplated by the Share Sale Agreement, dated as of
July 13, 2016, by and among Hydra Industries Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), and, inter alia, those persons
identified on Schedule I thereto, and that you have now directed IG(G) to pay 50% of such amount, or £1,200,000, to
the Company for your account in order to pay in full the cash purchase price for your purchase from the Company of 150,720 shares
of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $.0001 per share (“Common Stock”), at a price per share of $10.00 (applying
a rate of conversion of GB£ into US$ of 1.2560).


 


This will confirm that upon
the Company’s receipt of such payment for your account from IG(G), the Company will issue to you 150,720 shares of Common
Stock, subject only to your execution and delivery to the Company of a subscription agreement for such shares in customary form,
which will be prepared and provided to you promptly after the date of this letter.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Hydra Industries Acquisitions Corp.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ George Peng
	 	 	George Peng
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-11232.

#### Glaviano *v.*Denney, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.