alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STEVEN PAUL GARC IA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10556

D.C . No. 1:13-c r-00141-AW IB AM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 26, 2015 * * B e fore : HUG, FAR

RIS, an d C ANB Y, C irc uit Judge s . Ste ve n Pa ul Ga rc ia a ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a n d c ha lle nge s the 1 8-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for e sc a

pe from c ustody , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 751(a). Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ga

rc ia ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a

brie f stat ing tha

t the re are no 

# FIL ED OCT 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Ga

rc ia the opportunity

to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l is G RANT E D . AFFIRM E D .

2
Before the First Division,

December 8, 1955

No. 59524.

protests 98754-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### S. S. Kresge Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “C” consist of cardboard sleds with reindeer, composed in chief value of papier máché, the same as those the subject of Abstract 25921, said merchandise was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 as boxes, composed in chief value of papier máché, not specially provided for. The items marked “P,” stipulated to consist of animal or human figures, composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché, the same as those involved in Abstract 56975, were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 as manufactures of papier máché, not specially provided for.
Case No. 14,436.

#### UNITED STATES v. ALVISU.

[Hoff. Land Cas. 176.] 1

District Court, N. D. California.

Dec. Term, 1856.

Mexican Land Grant — Validity.

No objection to the validity of the claim. [Cited in Re Lady Bryan Min. Co., Case No. 7.978.]

Claim [by Manuel Alvisu] for three leagues of land in Santa Clara county [the Rancho Quito], confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States.

William Blanding, U. S. Atty.

Thornton & Williams, for appellee.

1

 [Reported by Numa Hubert, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BY THE COURT.

The claim in this case was confirmed by the board. It has been submitted to this court without argument or the statement on the part of the appellants of any reasons for reversing their decree. No doubt seems to have been entertained by the commissioners as to the authenticity of the grant. The original is produced, and the expediente is found in the archives. The land was occupied and cultivated by the original grantees, and has continued in their possession and that of persons claiming under them until the present day. Its boundaries are well known, and described with considerable precision in the grant and accompanying map. We see no reason for reversing the decision of the board. The claim must therefore" be confirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, Nelson A. Locke,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Amstar Financial Services, Inc.. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Nelson A. Locke
--------------------
Nelson A. Locke

November 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Registrant and will be retained by
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


                                       15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

vs.

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By order filed April 14, 2006, the court granted petitioner sixty days to file the

supporting exhibits and/or points and authorities cited in his traverse. On June 12, 2006,

petitioner filed points and authorities in support of his amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus. In light of petitioner’s belated submission of his supporting document, IT IS ORDERED

that respondents are granted sixty days from the date of this order to file either a supplemental

answer to petitioner’s amended petition or a notice that no supplemental answer will be filed.

DATED: June 19, 2006.

DAD:13

avar1044.mem2

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 41 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.1


MARKIT LTD.
AMENDMENT TO THE 
MARKIT LTD. 2014 EQUITY INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN


Amendment dated as of March 19, 2016 (this “Amendment”) to the Markit Ltd. 2014 Equity Incentive Award Plan (the “2014 Equity Plan”).


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, Markit Ltd. (the “Company”) has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 20, 2016 (the “Merger Agreement”), with Marvel Merger Sub, Inc., and IHS, Inc.; and


WHEREAS, in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the “Merger”), the Company desires to amend certain terms and conditions related to equity awards granted pursuant to the 2014 Equity Plan.


NOW THEREFORE, the 2014 Equity Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.AMENDMENT


A new Section 13.16, is hereby added to the 2014 Equity Plan as follows:
 
“13.16 Special Vesting Terms.    
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan or any Award Agreement (subject to any provisions applicable to a Holder under an Award Agreement or individual agreement that contain vesting terms that are more favorable to the Holder than those set forth in this Appendix A), if a Holder experiences a Termination of Service (i) as a result of a termination by the Company without “cause” (as defined in the Markit Key Employee Incentive Program) or (ii) for Holders who are members of the executive committee of the Company, as a result of the Holder resigning for “good reason” (as defined in an employment agreement applicable to such Holder), within 12 months after the Closing Date (as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 20, 2016, among the Company, Marvel Merger Sub, Inc., and IHS, Inc.), all unvested Awards held by such Holder shall vest in full immediately on the date of such Termination of Service and any Options held by such Holder shall remain exercisable until the earlier of (i) 12 months following the date such Termination of Service or (ii) the expiration of the original stated term for such Option set forth in the applicable Award Agreement.”


		
	2.
	EFFECTIVENESS OF AMENDMENT




This Amendment will become effective on the Closing Date (as defined in the Merger Agreement).  In the event that the Merger does not occur, this Amendment will be null and void 







and will have no further force or effect.  Except as amended by the terms of this Amendment, the 2014 Equity Plan will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


2
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: 

 Project No.: 0172.09.005.424 Page 1 of 1 

 Project Name: 304m 2012 Annual Review CBI? 

 Yes 

 No 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Incoming 

 Outgoing 

Date: 09/24/12 Time: 4:30 am 

 pm 

Company Name: California EPA ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell 

Contact Name: Phillip Isorena Contact Phone Number: (916) 341-5544 

General Subject: Tosco Corporation Petroleum Refinery 2010 Dioxin Discharges 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On September 24, 2012 at 4:30pm I called Phillip Isorena of the California EPA Permitting Section and left a 

message. 

On September 24, 2012 at 5:20pm Renan Jauregui returned my call (916-341-5505). I told him that I needed to 

confirm the following dioxin discharges from the Tosco Corporation, Amorco Wharf (CA0004961) in 

Martinez, CA: 

 All discharges from Outfall 001, September 2010 

 OCDF: 101,000,000 pg/L (0.101 mg/L = 101 ug/L); Pram = 51025 

 OCDD: 1,600; 3,100 pg/L; Pram = 03818 

He looked up the facility and said that the facility did not start submitting electronic data until 2011 and 

therefore he has to track down the hard copy files to confirm the data. He stated that he would track down the 

data and get back to me as soon as he can. 

On September 26 at 4:30pm Renan called me and stated that there was a data entry error. He said that the data 

was entered as micrograms per liter but reported as picograms per liter. Correct data is below. 

 Pram 51025 (OCDF): 0.000101 ug/L = 101 pg/L 

 Pram 03818 (OCDD): 0.00317 ug/L = 3170 pg/L
EXHIBIT 21





                           SUBSIDIARIES OF IBP, inc.            
                              December 30, 1995

                         IBP Foreign Sales Corporation          
                           IBP Hog Markets, Inc.*                          
                           IBP International, Inc.
                         IBP International, Inc. Asia** 
                        IBP International, Inc. Europe**
                            IBP of Wisconsin, inc.   
                           IBP Service Center Corp.
                             IBP Subsidiary, Inc.          
                        Lakeside Farm Industries, Ltd.                       
                           Lakeside Packers, Ltd. ***
                                 PBX, inc.
                             Prepared Foods, Inc.      
                       Rural Energy Systems, Inc.                     
                      Southern Beef Processors, Inc.
                       Supreme Processed Foods, Inc.
                             Texas Transfer, Inc.

                            _______________________             
             * Also doing business as Heinold Hog Market

            ** Stock is 100% owned by IBP International, Inc.

           *** Stock is 100% owned by Lakeside Farm Industries, Ltd.
No. 51397.

#### Protests 802350-G, etc., of Van Raalte Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

November 18, 1954

No. 58521.

protests 208100-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Janet Lee Guajardo, Appellant

No. 06-23-00055-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 114-

0889-20). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice van Cleef, Chief Justice Stevens 

and Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Janet Lee Guajardo, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 15, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Dwight Mallory <Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 9:49 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Patrick Flynn Subject: RE: Information Request

Attachments: removed.txt; SC-521-S1R2.pdf

Shaheerah,

As Resolute stated in our November 19, 2014 comments to th e draft permit, continuous monitoring of the volume of gas combusted in the Main Flare, as required by condition IX.E.1.c of the draft permit, already accounts for any purge gas that is combusted by the Main Flare. Purge g as is routed to the flare via the same fl are gas inlet nozzle (N-1 on the attached diagram) as any process gas that is combusted during upset conditi ons. All of the gas that is sent to the Main Flare via the flare gas inlet nozzle is measured by the Main Flare meter.

Again referencing our November 19, 2014 comments to the draf t permit, the volume of pilot gas consumed by the Main Flare is not currently metered as required by condition IX.E.1.d of the draft permit. Emissions from pilot gas combustion are insignificant (<0.5 TPY for CO and <0.1 TPY for NOx) and do not justify the costs for installation of metering and SCADA equipment to measure the small volume of gas combusted by the pilot.

Let me know if you need anything else.

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location.

Dwight E. Mallory Environmental/Regulatory Manager Resolute Energy Corporation 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2800
Denver, CO 80203

Direct: 303-573-4886 X 1165

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 2:58 PM

To: Dwight Mallory <Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com>
Subject: Information Request

Dwight,

Regarding the following conditions in the draft PSD permit, does Please let me know.

Permit condition IX.E.1.c: The Permittee shall continuously measure and record th e volume of gas combusted in the Main Flare.

Permit condition IX.E.1.d: The Permittee shall install, operate and maintain continuous monitoring systems on the Main Flare for the usage of pilot gas and purge gas (other than nitrogen or other inert gas) by the Main Flare, in standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM). Readings shall be taken at least once every 5 minutes and the average hourly values shall be recorded on an hourly and daily basis.

Thank you.2 ************************************ Shaheerah Kelly
Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9
San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, privile ged, and proprietary information of Resolute Energy Corporation. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution may be prohibi ted under law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E-mail of any erroneous transmission, and destroy the original E-mail, any attach ments, and all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Exhibit 11 (a)



IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 11(a) - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


Year Ended December 31,                 1996        1995        1994
                                       -----       -----       -----
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PRIMARY SHARES OUTSTANDING:

<S>                                   <C>         <C>         <C>
Average number of shares outstanding   11,358,121  11,279,870  11,547,034
Assumed exercise of stock options         251,535     206,386     219,178
                                       ----------- ----------- -----------
Total shares (Note 2)                  11,609,656  11,486,256  11,766,212
                                      =========== =========== ===========

NET INCOME                            $22,428,337 $20,083,202 $18,215,539
                                      =========== =========== ===========

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE (Note 2)         $1.93       $1.75       $1.55
                                            =====       =====       =====
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FULLY DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING:

<S>                                   <C>         <C>         <C>
Average number of shares outstanding   11,358,121  11,279,870  11,547,034
Assumed exercise of stock options
(Note 1)                                  298,210     232,940     234,606
                                      ----------- ----------- -----------
Total shares (Note 2)                  11,656,331  11,512,810  11,781,640
                                      =========== =========== ===========


NET INCOME                            $22,428,337 $20,083,202 $18,215,539
                                      =========== =========== ===========

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE (Note 2)   $1.92       $1.74       $1.55
                                            =====       =====       =====
</TABLE>



(1)  The dilutive effect of stock options is based on the
Treasury Stock method using the higher of the average market
price for the year or the year-end market price.

(2)  Adjusted for the two-for-one stock split on December 30,
1996

XXXPAGE 137XXX
Eagle Eye Systems, LLC 333 Exemption Amendment 160107v3

- signed.docx 1 of 1 7 JANUARY 2016

**Eagle Eye Systems, Inc.**

**310W 56th**

**- Apt 14A**  **New York, NY 10019**

**U .S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System**  **1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington DC 20590** 

**Re:** Additional Aircraft Amendment to Exemption No. 13586 ; Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3558.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 14 CFR Part 11, Eagle Eye Systems, Inc., 310W 56th

- Apt 14A, New York, NY 10019, operator of
small Un manned Aircraft System ( s UAS) hereby requests an amendment to our exemption no.
13586 , issued on 16 NOV 2015 as an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow commerci al operation of designated UAS.

Eagle Eye Systems is requ esting an amendment to add a sUAS to our existing 333 exempti on as listed and described above. The amendment will serve to increase the functionality and usefulness of UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working environments in the industries in which they are deployed. Eagle Eye Systems would like to add an ad ditional

multi rotor designed in

- house using commercial o ff

- the

- shelf (COTS) components. Eagle Eye Systems cites Exemption No. 11256A Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0908 as evidence that this request is within the summary approval criteria for amendments to existing exemptions.

**Manufacturer:** EES
**Model No.:** DJI Flame Wheel 550 (F550) with Pixhawk Autopilot (3DR Pixhawk)

The EES

- F550P meets all weight, speed and other c onditions stipulated in exemption letter 13586

.

Sincerely,



## Alberto Corvo

Alberto Corvo

CEO Eagle Eye Systems, Inc.
310W 56th

- Apt 14A, New York, NY 10019 Alberto@EagleEyeSys.com
June 17, 1963

No. 67849.

#### Loewengart & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29534.

Protest dismissed April 11, 1963. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4229 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require that coinsurance 

for drugs under Medicare part D be based on the drug’s net price 

and not the drug’s list price. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 

that coinsurance for drugs under Medicare part D be 

based on the drug’s net price and not the drug’s list 

price. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reducing Drug Prices 

5 for Seniors Act.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4229 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING THAT COINSURANCE FOR DRUGS 

2 UNDER MEDICARE PART D BE BASED ON THE 

3 DRUG’S NET PRICE AND NOT THE DRUG’S 

4 LIST PRICE. 

5 Section 1860D–2 of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395w–102) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter 

9 preceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘and (9)’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘, (9), and (10)’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(10) REQUIREMENT THAT COINSURANCE FOR

14 COVERED PART D DRUGS BE BASED ON THE NET

15 PRICE OF THE DRUG.— 

16 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For plan years begin17 ning on or after January 1, 2025, for costs 

18 above the annual deductible specified in para19 graph (1) and below the annual out-of-pocket 

20 threshold specified in paragraph (4), any coin21 surance amount for a covered part D drug (in22 sofar as such covered part D drug is included 

23 on the formulary and subject to coinsurance 

24 rather than a copayment) shall be calculated 

25 based on the net price (and not the list price) 

26 of such covered part D drug if such net price 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4229 IS

1 is lower than the list price of such covered part 

2 D drug. The preceding sentence shall not apply 

3 to a covered part D drug described in para4 graph (8) or (9). 

5 ‘‘(B) NET PRICE DEFINED.—In this para6 graph, the term ‘net price’ means, with respect 

7 to a covered part D drug, the negotiated price 

8 of the covered part D drug under the prescrip9 tion drug plan or MA–PD plan, net of any 

10 manufacturer-provided price concessions (as de11 fined under section 423.100 of title 42, Code of 

12 Federal Regulations (or any successor regula13 tion)), as reported for such drug in the Detailed 

14 DIR Report (or any successor report) sub15 mitted by the sponsor or organization offering 

16 the plan for the previous plan year.’’. 

17 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

18 following new paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(7) REQUIREMENT THAT COINSURANCE FOR

20 COVERED PART D DRUGS BE BASED ON THE NET

21 PRICE OF THE DRUG.—The coverage is provided in 

22 accordance with subsection (b)(10).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS