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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

JAMES DE DIOS MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50265

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04295-JAH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

James De Dios Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

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

FILED

MAR 02 2016

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).
Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly

relying on the need to punish and the need to promote respect for the law when

fashioning his sentence. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court

was primarily concerned with Martinez’s poor history on supervision and breach of

the court’s trust, and did not base the sentence on any improper factors. See United

States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the 12-month

sentence, two months above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range, is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50265
Page | of |

cee oa VF Y4ta—-/0
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION a EG-\¥ i
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

BRANCH
As of: September 03, 2010

PUBLIC Status Posted

Posted: September 03, 2010

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0686
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information
Name: Lisa Hutchinson
Address:
Orlando, FL,
General Comment
See attached file(s)

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0686.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/3/2010



[August 12, 2010]

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to
Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

[Lisa Hutchinson]
<PAGE>

                            SILVERADO GOLD MINES LTD.


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                                  ------------
                             COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
                             ----------------------



THIS  AMENDMENT TO COMPENSATION AGREEMENT made and entered into this 26th day of
February  1995 by and between Garry L. Anselmo, (hereinafter, "Mr. Anselmo") and
Silverado  Mines  Ltd.,  a British Columbia company having its principal offices
located  at  Suite  505,  1111  West  Georgia  Street,  Vancouver,  BC  V6E  4M3
(hereinafter,  "the Company") amends an agreement entered into among the parties
on  May  8,  1995  by  deleting  section  2(a)(i) and substituting the following
language:

     i)   Four  Million  Dollars  (U.S.)  ($4,000,000  U.S.),  plus

All  other provisions of the said Compensation Agreement shall remain unchanged.


IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Parties hereto have set their hand and seals the year
and  date  first  above  written.

Agreed:                              Agreed:

                                     SILVERADO GOLD MINES INC.

/s/ Garry L. Anselmo                 by:  /s/ J. P. Tangen
________________________                  ___________________________
Garry L. Anselmo                          J.P. Tangen, Director
                                          for the Board of Directors
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 19-20594 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,
versus Ivan Pagoaga Castro, Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-196-1

______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Pagoaga Castro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Castro’s claims

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-20594 Document: 00516708925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2023No. 19-20594

2 of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Castro’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, th e motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R . 42.2. Case: 19-20594 Document: 00516708925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2023
# Admiral provides details of Somali piracy killings

/ Published Feb. 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (Feb. 22, 2011) — Four pirates are dead and 15 are in custody, but not before they killed four Americans in the bloodiest piracy incident in recent history, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command told reporters in a conference call today.

Navy Vice Adm. Mark I. Fox, who also commands the Navy’s 5th Fleet, said the pirates shot Scott and Jean Adams of California and Phyllis Mackay and Bob Riggle of Washington state. The surface vessel Quest was sailing around the world when the Somalis hijacked it off the coast of Oman.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One that President Barack Obama authorized the use of force if there was an imminent threat to the hostages. He said the president was informed of their deaths at 4:42 this morning.

“The loss of our fellow Americans is a tragedy,” Fox said from his headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.

The admiral gave a timeline of the action. Pirates captured the vessel about 190 nautical miles southeast of Masirah Island, Oman, Feb. 18. Four U.S. Navy warships responded: the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf and the guided-missile destroyers USS Sterett and USS Bulkeley.

The ships found the vessel and made contact with the pirates via bridge-to-bridge radio, and began a series of negotiations. Yesterday, two pirates boarded the USS Sterett to continue negotiations.

“At 8 a.m. this morning ... a rocket-propelled grenade was fired by the pirates from the Quest toward the Sterett,” Fox said. “Immediately thereafter, gunfire erupted from inside the cabin of the Quest. Several pirates appeared on the deck of the Quest and moved up to the bow with their hands in the air in surrender.”

U.S. special operations forces closed in on the Quest in small boats and boarded the yacht. “They discovered that all four hostages had been shot by their captors,” Fox said. The service members took immediate steps to provide medical care, but the four Americans died of their wounds. The boarding party also found two dead pirates aboard the vessel.

The special operations forces did not fire weapons during the boarding, Fox said.

“While clearing the vessel, two additional pirates were killed,” the admiral said. “The remaining 15 suspected pirates are in U.S. custody.”

Fox said two additional pirates were killed as the special operators cleared the boat. One was killed with a pistol, the other in a knife fight, the admiral said. There were no casualties to service members or damage to Navy ships. The Navy and the FBI are investigating the incident.

Fox said the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of the report of Vitale, Caturano & Company, P.C.
(whose name has been changed to Caturano and Company, P.C. effective May 1,
2009) dated March 31, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Spire Corporation and Subsidiaries, as of and for the years ended December 31,
2008 and December 31, 2007, included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-22223,
333-128611 and 333-143517).


/s/ Caturano and Company, P.C.

CATURANO AND COMPANY, P.C.

November 20, 2009
Boston, Massachusetts
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1



                          ZITEL CORPORATION

            COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON
                  AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE


                                            Year Ended September 30,
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                     1995            1996              1997
                                  ----------      ----------       ------------
Average common shares
  outstanding                     14,158,000      14,726,000        15,222,000

Computation of incremental
  outstanding shares
    Net effect of dilutive
     stock options based
     on treasury stock
     method                        1,008,000         900,000                -
                                  ----------      ----------        ----------
                                  15,166,000      15,626,000        15,222,000
                                  ==========      ==========        ==========

Net income (loss)                 $8,526,000      $4,049,000      $(17,501,000)
                                  ==========      ==========      ============

Net income (loss) per share       $     0.56      $     0.26      $      (1.15)
                                  ==========      ==========      ============



Primary and fully diluted income (loss) per share differ by less than one cent
in all periods.








                                        Page 61
President pledges to increase pressure in Afghanistan
 By Donna Miles , American Forces Press Service
  
 WASHINGTON (Aug. 20, 2009) – President Barack Obama pledged Thursday to keep ramping up pressure on insurgents in Afghanistan, citing developments aimed at “squeezing them from both sides” to ultimately “flush them out.” Obama spoke primarily about health-care reform during a call-in program with Michael Smerconish from Philadelphia radio station WPHT. But recognizing the significance of Thursday’s Afghan national elections, Smerconish pressed the president to assess where things stand in the war on terror. The president cited what he said appears to have been a successful election despite Taliban efforts to disrupt it. He also pointed to new leadership under Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and additional U.S. and NATO International Security Assistance Force troops who are putting pressure on insurgents operating in the east and south. In addition, Obama noted, “you’ve got the Pakistani army for the first time actually fighting in a very aggressive way.” “That’s how we took out Baitullah Mehsud, the top Taliban leader in Pakistan, who was also one of [al-Qaida leader Osama] bin Laden's key allies,” he said. Mehsud was killed by a missile strike earlier this month. “We are continuing to ramp up the pressure in Afghanistan,” Obama said. “The goal here is essentially to have a pincher, where we are squeezing them on both sides. We're eliminating their allies. It’s making it more difficult for them to communicate, making it more difficult for them to operate safe havens. And over time, what we hope to do is to flush them out. We are going to keep on putting pressure on them.” Obama conceded that these efforts come at a great cost. He noted that he signs letters of condolence to families of fallen servicemembers, and recognizes that “a lot more are falling in Afghanistan than in Iraq.” “As a consequence, we've got to make sure that we are really focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan,” he said. “But it's going to take some time.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q at
December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,132,256
<SECURITIES>                                 7,609,908
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,343,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,072,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            66,973,328
<PP&E>                                     182,961,003
<DEPRECIATION>                              84,174,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             209,186,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,888,027
<BONDS>                                    161,119,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,568,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               209,186,573
<SALES>                                     39,546,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           127,291,475
<CGS>                                       34,221,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,942,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,750,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,057,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,186,463)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,683,910)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,502,553)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,502,553)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Page 1 of 1 1<EG-- J/y4 JD... -/0 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 


As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

BRANCH 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c654 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Statu; as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-201O-001O-0198 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Thomas Edward Hewitt 

Address: 

40 Palatine 

Apt 303 

Irvine, CA, 92612 

Email: drtom@backtobasicsnewport.com 

Phone: 949-650-0736 

Organization: ACA 

Government Agency Type: Federal 

Government Agency: HHS 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0198.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:/Ifdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency IcomponentisubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010 
Monday, August 9,2010 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-20 I 0­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of the!ie 

regulations. 

Thomas. E. Hewitt
---

---

Exhibit 23.5

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8, (File
No. 333-61895, File No. 333-55970) and Forms S-3, (File No. 333-140968,
File No. 333-1406969 and File No. 333-140974) of our report dated March 22, 2007
relating to the financial statements of Coral World International, Ltd. which appears in
this Form 10-K of Ampal-American Israel Corporation.

Fahn Kanne & Co. CPAs
(ISR)

Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 29, 2007



---

---
Page 1 of 1

REE |S dla- 10

SEP § au

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS IAs off September 05, 2010

5 CH Re ived: Al t 24, 2010
PUBLIC Status: Posted _
Postec : September 09, 0
SUBMISSION Comments Due: September 15, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0002
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Status as Grandfathered Health Plan under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Cross-Reference

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0950
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14487

Untown IT Submitter Information

General Comment

In the individual market, if a member was enrotled on March 23, 2010, he is grandfathered along
with all dependents on the individual policy. What if a newborn is added, is that child
grandfathered? What if the member wants to add a dependent who was previously not enrolled
(because they may have been on another policy) or not eligible (a person over 18 who did not
meet eligibility criteria before the Age 26 change in PPACA). Are these members allowed to jpoin
the plan and are they grandfathered?

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P.... 9/9/2010
#### Joshua J. Towle, Respondent, v. The Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Barker, J., not .sitting.
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Industrial  Minerals,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the year ending  March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, John
Melnyk,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sction 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 results of
                operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ John Melnyk
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John Melnyk, CFO

Dated:  5/13/03
#### Paul Cushman, as Trustee, etc., Respondent, v. Charles E. Leland, as such Trustee, etc., and individually, Respondent. Mary Ann Trimble and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Landon, J.