alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Jose MATTIA, Billy, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10405.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2004.

Decided May 24, 2004.

Bruce M. Ferg, Esq., Sandra Marie Hansen, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ralph E. Ellinwood, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*810MEMORANDUM *

William Jose Mattia (“Mattia”) appeals the district court’s order amending his original judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 36, which permits correction of clerical errors. The oral pronouncement of sentence was consistent with the court’s intent. The written judgment, however, omitted a key provision that resulted in Mattia’s early release. Mattia argues that the omission was not simply a clerical mistake and that Rule 36 does not permit the district court to amend the written judgment under these facts. We disagree.

Rule 36 states, “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment____” Fed. R.Crim. P. 36. The record clearly demonstrates that the written judgment did not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement. On September 16, 2002, the district judge ordered that Mattia “be sentenced to 24 months of custody plus 651 days of official detention adjustment.” The written judgment failed to include the 651 days of official detention adjustment.

The law in this circuit dictates that “[i]n cases where there is a direct conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment and commitment, ... the oral pronouncement, as correctly reported, must control. The only sentence that is legally cognizable is the actual oral pronouncement in the presence of the defendant.” *United States v. Allen,*157 F.3d 661, 668 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting *United States v. Hicks,*997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993)). Upon a full reading of the record, it is clear that the oral pronouncement was an accurate description of the sentence intended by both parties, and that the omission in the written judgment was exactly the kind of error that Rule 36 was designed to correct. AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of'this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge.

I respectfully dissent. It was clear from the oral pronouncement of sentence that the period of incarceration was extended. But it was equally clear that this extension was intended to make Mattia eligible for sexual offender therapy at a Bureau of Prisons facility in Butner, North Carolina — treatment that the defendant and the government agreed was needed. The error in the written judgment meant that Mattia was ineligible for therapy in Butner, which required a minimum of twenty-four months’ custody. The transfer was not made; no treatment was provided. The defendant has already served a sentence commensurate with the Guidelines. More than a mere clerical error is involved here.
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0111
No. 11-5537.

#### Duran *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

 PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Edward L. Erickson,Chief Executive Officer of Immunicon Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, that:

 

(1) The Company’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  EDWARD L. ERICKSON |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Edward L. Erickson           |
| Chief Executive Officer      |
| August 11, 2004         |

 

----
§ 69.132 End user Consumer Broadband-Only Loop charge for non-price cap incumbent local exchange carriers. ( a ) This section is applicable only to incumbent local exchange carriers that are not subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in § 61.3(ee) of this chapter.
( b ) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents per line per month may be assessed upon end users that subscribe to Consumer Broadband-Only Loop service. Such charge shall be assessed for each line without regulated local exchange voice service provided by a rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carrier to a customer, for use in connection with fixed Broadband Internet access service, as defined in § 8.2 of this chapter.
( c ) For carriers not electing model-based support pursuant to § 54.311 of this chapter or Alaska Plan support pursuant to § 54.306 of this chapter, the single-line rate or charge shall be computed by dividing one-twelfth of the projected annual revenue requirement for the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category (net of the projected annual Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support attributable to consumer broadband-only loops) by the projected average number of consumer broadband-only service lines in use during such annual period.
( d ) The maximum monthly per line charge for each Consumer Broadband-Only Loop provided by a non-price cap local exchange carrier that elects model-based support pursuant to § 54.311 of this chapter or Alaska Plan support pursuant to § 54.306 of this chapter shall be $42.
[48 FR 10358, Mar. 11, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 24345, Apr. 25, 2016; 81 FR 69716, Oct. 7, 2016]
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-222773 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-220002, 333-212267, 333-207325, and 333-170710 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 14, 2018, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Flex Ltd. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Flex Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2018.

 

*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

 

San Jose, California June 20, 2018

 

----
§ 6.5 General obligations. ( a ) *Obligation of Manufacturers.* ( 1 ) A manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed and fabricated so that the telecommunications functions of the equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
( 2 ) Whenever the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section are not readily achievable, the manufacturer shall ensure that the equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.
( b ) *Obligation of Service Providers.* ( 1 ) A provider of a telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
( 2 ) Whenever the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are not readily achievable, the service provider shall ensure that the service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.
( c ) *Obligation of Telecommunications Carriers.* Each telecommunications carrier must not install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to this part or part 7 of this chapter.
No. 11-5441.

#### Suber *v.*Kerestes, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9689.

#### Davila-Nieves *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.S., the Father

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN and FAMILIES
, GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM and K.S., a minor, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 1829

[ October 18, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Alberto Ribas

, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016

- 4863CJ

DP

.

Sean Conway, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz,

As sistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Department of

Children and Families.

Marynelle Hardee, Gainesville, and Thomasina F. Moore, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 335

_____________________________
D APHEDRON L AMAR A LLEN ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

October 23, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

B.L. T HOMAS , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Rick A. Sichta and Su s anne K. Sichta of The Sichta Firm, LLC
, Jacksonville
, for Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 480 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 480

   To extend supplemental security income benefits to all otherwise 
      eligible children of military personnel stationed overseas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1993

 Mr. Slattery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend supplemental security income benefits to all otherwise 
      eligible children of military personnel stationed overseas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME BENEFITS TO ALL 
              OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL 
              STATIONED OVERSEAS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``, and 
who,'' and all that follows through ``title''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to benefits payable for months beginning after the calendar month 
in which this Act is enacted.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of Western Water Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and as amended on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael Patrick George, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



/S/ MICHAEL PATRICK GEORGE

Michael Patrick George
Chief Executive Officer
August 5, 2002



                                       13
§ 80.149 Answer to notice of violation. ( a ) Any person receiving official notice of violation of the terms of the Communications Act, any legislative act, executive order, treaty to which the United States is a party, terms of a station or operator license, or the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission must within 10 days from such receipt, send a written answer, in duplicate, to the office of the Commission originating the official notice. If an answer cannot be sent or an acknowledgment made within such 10-day period by reason of illness or other unavoidable circumstances, acknowledgment and answer must be made at the earliest practicable date with a satisfactory explanation of the delay. The answer to each notice must be complete in itself and must not be abbreviated by references to other communications or answers to other notices. The answer must contain a full explanation of the incident involved and must set forth the action taken to prevent a continuation or recurrence. If the notice relates to lack of attention to or improper operation of the station or to log or watch discrepancies, the answer must give the name and license number of the licensed operator on duty.
( b ) When an official notice of violation, impending violation, or discrepancy, pertaining to any provision of Part II of Title III of the Communications Act or the radio provisions of the Safety Convention, is served upon the master or person responsible for a vessel and any instructions appearing on such document issued by a representative of the Commission are at variance with the content of paragraph (a) of this section, the instructions issued by the Commission's representative supersede those set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
exv4w9xby



 










Exhibit 4.9 (b)




	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Endeavour International Corporation
	 
	From:

	 	BNP Paribas S.A. (the
“Agent”)
	 
	Date:

	 	9 March 2007





THIS MESSAGE CONSISTS OF 3 PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE.

 





Endeavour International Corporation (the “Company”)




US$225,000,000 Secured Revolving Loan and Letter of Credit Facility Agreement of 30 October 2006




(the “Credit Agreement”)




Financial Covenants — Gearing




 






	1.	 	INTRODUCTION
	 
	1.1	 	We refer to:-






	 	1.1.1	 	the Credit Agreement; and
	 
	 	1.1.2	 	the Company’s recent request relating to its compliance with Clause 24.4 — Gearing.






	1.2	 	Unless otherwise defined in this letter, terms defined in the Credit Agreement (whether
expressly or by incorporation and as the context so requires) shall have the same meaning when
used in this letter.
	 
	2.	 	WAIVER CONSENT
	 
	 	 	With effect from the date of this letter:






Clause 24.4 (Gearing) of the Credit Agreement  — the Majority Creditors have
granted a waiver to the Company to comply with Clause 24.4 Gearing of the Credit
Agreement until 31st of December 2007 in respect of the Measurement
Period (as defined in the Credit Agreement) then ended (i.e., to waive this Clause
with respect to the Measurement Periods ending on 31 December 2006 and 30 June
2007).



 









 






	3.	 	GENERAL
	 
	3.1	 	Save as expressly provided for in this letter, no provision of any Finance Document is
waived, amended or otherwise modified and the waivers and amendments contemplated in this
letter shall be without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the Secured Creditors with
respect to any other matters.
	 
	3.2	 	This letter is a designated Finance Document.
	 
	3.3	 	This letter may be executed in a number of counterparts, and this has the same effect as if
the signatures on the counterparts were on a single copy of this letter.
	 
	3.4	 	This letter is governed by English law.
	 
	3.5	 	Please confirm your acceptance of the terms of this letter by counter-signing this letter or
a copy of it.





	 	 	 
	Yours faithfully,
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Remi Collonges-Dufouleur

	 	/s/ Severine Cantoia
	 
	 	 
	Rémi COLLONGES-DUFOULEUR

	 	Severine CANTOIA
	 
	 	 
	 

For and on behalf of

	 	 
	BNP Paribas S.A.
	 	 









We agree to the terms of this letter.






	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Lance Gilliland

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

For and on behalf of Endeavour International Corporation

	 	 
	(for itself and on behalf of each other Obligor)
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.18 Transmitter control and operation.

Except where unattended operation is specifically permitted, the licensee of each station authorized under the provisions of this part shall designate a person or persons to activate and control its transmitter. At the discretion of the station licensee, persons so designated may be employed for other duties and for operation of other transmitting stations if such other duties will not interfere with the proper operation of the station transmission systems.

[60 FR 55482, Nov. 1, 1995]
§ 25.279 Inter-satellite service. ( a ) Any satellite communicating with other space stations may use frequencies in the inter-satellite service as indicated in § 2.106 of this chapter. This does not preclude the use of other frequencies for such purposes as provided for in several service definitions, *e.g.*, FSS. The technical details of the proposed inter-satellite link shall be provided in accordance with § 25.114(c).
( b ) *Operating conditions.* In order to ensure compatible operations with authorized users in the frequency bands to be utilized for operations in the inter-satellite service, these inter-satellite service systems must operate in accordance with the conditions specified in this section. ( 1 ) *Coordination requirements with federal government users.* ( i ) In frequency bands allocated for use by the inter-satellite service that are also authorized for use by agencies of the federal government, the federal use of frequencies in the inter-satellite service frequency bands is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
( ii ) The Commission will use its existing procedures to reach agreement with NTIA to achieve compatible operations between federal government users under the jurisdiction of NTIA and inter-satellite service systems through frequency assignment and coordination practice established by NTIA and the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). In order to facilitate such frequency assignment and coordination, applicants shall provide the Commission with sufficient information to evaluate electromagnetic compatibility with the federal government users of the spectrum, and any additional information requested by the Commission. As part of the coordination process, applicants shall show that they will not cause interference to authorized federal government users, based upon existing system information provided by the government. The frequency assignment and coordination of the satellite system shall be completed prior to grant of construction authorization.
( 2 ) *Coordination among inter-satellite service systems.* Applicants for authority to establish inter-satellite service are encouraged to coordinate their proposed frequency usage with existing permittees and licensees in the inter-satellite service whose facilities could be affected by the new proposal in terms of frequency interference or restricted system capacity. All affected applicants, permittees, and licensees, shall at the direction of the Commission, cooperate fully and make every reasonable effort to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum; however, the permittee or licensee being coordinated with is not obligated to suggest changes or re-engineer an applicant's proposal in cases involving conflicts.
[59 FR 53331, Oct. 21, 1994, as amended at 65 FR 59144, Oct. 4, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.503 Frequency selection. ( a ) Each application for a new station or change in an existing station shall be specific with regard to frequency. In general, the lowest suitable frequency will be assigned which, on an engineering basis, will not cause harmful interference to other stations operating in accordance with existing frequency allocations.
( b ) Where it appears that interference may result from the operation of a new station or a change in the facilities of an existing station, the Commission may require a showing that harmful interference will not be caused to existing stations or that if interference will be caused the need for the proposed service outweighs the loss of service due to the interference.
[28 FR 13716, Dec. 14, 1963]
§ 73.754 Frequency monitors. ( a ) The licensee of each international broadcast station shall operate a frequency monitor at the transmitter independent of the frequency control of the transmitter.
( b ) The frequency monitor shall be designed and constructed in accordance with good engineering practice. It shall have an accuracy sufficient to determine that the operating frequency is within one-half of the allowed tolerance.
[37 FR 25842, Dec. 5, 1972]
#### EDWARD MEYER, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, CHARLES MEYER, AND CHARLES MEYER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, AND EVERETT CURRY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Norman J. Currie*and *Mr. Edward W. Currie*for the petitioners.

November 19, 1951.

Granted.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 September 27, 2016

a0919

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2016

151414

TAMARA WOODRING,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151414

COA: 324128

Muskegon CC: 14-049544-NI

PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

Spectrum Health Hospitals v Westfield Ins Co (Docket No. 151419) is pending on appeal 

before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the 

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.