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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

STEPHEN O’NEAL WASHINGTON, Jr.,

a.k.a. Steven O’Neal Washington, Jr.,

a.k.a. Steven O’Neal Washington,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10102

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-50016-ROS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 23, 2014*** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Stephen O’neal Washington, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order

FILED

SEP 30 2014

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 Honorable Howard D. McKibben, United States District Judge

for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
revoking supervised release and challenges the 10-month custodial sentence, 36-

month term of supervised release, and a special condition of supervised release

imposed upon revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Washington contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the

sentence adequately and to address his nonfrivolous arguments for a nonGuidelines sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons,

558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. See United States v. Carty,

520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred

from the record as a whole).

Washington also challenges a special condition of supervised release. His

challenge is only to the written order, which prohibits him “from making major

purchases, incurring new financial obligations, or entering into financial contracts

without the prior approval of the probation officer.” Washington argues that this

condition is unconstitutionally vague and insufficiently related to the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(d) sentencing factors. Because it is not clear from the order which

transactions are subject to the condition, the condition is impermissibly vague. See

United States v. Guagliardo, 278 F.3d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 2002) (conditions of

supervised release must be “sufficiently clear to inform [defendant] of what

2 14-10102
conduct will result in his being returned to prison”). We, therefore, vacate special

supervised release condition #4. We remand for the district court to reenter

judgment without this condition or to hold a resentencing at which the court may

reimpose the condition more narrowly. If the court reimposes the condition, it

shall state with greater particularity which purchases, financial obligations, and

financial contracts are covered by the condition and why the condition is necessary

in this case.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

3 14-10102
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Annual Report) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Sebastián Eskenazi, the Chief Executive Officer, Ignacio Moran, the Chief Financial
Officer of YPF Sociedad Anónima and Ángel Ramos Sánchez, the Director of Administration and Tax, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of YPF Sociedad Anónima.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 30, 2009



By:

/s/ Sebastián EskenaziName:

Sebastián EskenaziTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Ignacio Cruz MoranName:

Ignacio Cruz MoranTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerBy:

/s/ Ángel Ramos SánchezName:

Ángel Ramos SánchezTitle:

Director of Administration and Tax
Order entered June 25 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01146
- CR JOSEPH WAYNE HUNTER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F13
- 56295
- R



### O RDER On May 28, 2015, this Court ordered Mary Snider, the former official court reporter of the 265th Judicial District Court, to file a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit no. 14 within fifteen days. To date, Ms. S nider has neither filed the exhibit nor communicated with the Court regarding the status of the exhibit. Accordingly, w e ORDER Mary Snider, former official court reporter of the 265th Judicial District Court, to file, by 4:00 p.m. on MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015 , a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit no. 14. If the supplemental record containing the exhibit is not filed by the date specified, the Court will utilize its available remedies, including ordering that Mary Snider not sit as a court reporter u ntil she has filed the exhibit in this case.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Rick Magnis,

Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Mary Snider, now official court reporter 283rd Judicial District Court, and to couns el for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court g enerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be c ited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 The Supreme Court, in Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997), holds that the new provisions of 28 U.S.C., ch. 153, which includes the § 2253(c) certificate of appealability (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 30 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEWIS LAVERN SETLIFF, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. MICHAEL CODY, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6144 (D.C. No. 95-CV-962) (Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , BALDOCK and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Lewis Lavern Setliff seeks leave to appe al from the district court’s decision adopting the magistrate judge’s re port and recommendation and dismissing Mr. Setliff’s petition for a writ of hab eas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We construe petitioner’s application for a c ertificate of appealability as one for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 11 (...continued)

requirement, added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), are generally not applicable to cases filed before AEDPA’s effective date, April24, 1996. See United States v. Kunzman , No. 96-1310, 1997 WL 602507, at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 1997) (en banc). This circuit has therefore held that § 2254 petitioners who filed their petitions in di strict court prior to the effective date of AEDPA, as in this case, do not need a certificate of appealability. Id. Petitioner, however, is subject to § 2253's previous requirement that he obtain a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994) (amended 1996). - 2 - In Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880 (1983), the Supreme Court held that “a certificate of probable cause requires petitioner t o make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.” 463 U.S. at 893 (c itations omitted). This requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the issues pre sented are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the i ssues differently or that the questions deserve further proceedings. See id. at 893 n.4. After careful examination of petitioner’s application, the distri ct court’s order and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we co nclude that Mr. Setliff has failed to make the required showing. Consequently, petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED . The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PABLO MATOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 04-295 Erie

v. )

)

JAMES F. SHERMAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 6,

2004, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9], filed on

January 20, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition [Doc. No. 1] be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to

file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and on Respondent. 

No objections were filed. After de novo review of the petition and documents in the

case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on January 20, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cv-00295-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


                                                                       Exhibit 4



                                 [DEMEGEN LOGO]



February 8, 2000


James Colker
CEO Venture Fund
2000 Technology Drive, Suite 160
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-3451


Re: Demegen Warrant No. 1 (the "Warrant") held by CEO Venture Fund (the "Fund")


Dear Jim:

         This letter will confirm the agreement that has been reached between
Demegen, Inc. (the "Company") and the Fund concerning certain provisions of the
Warrant as follows (all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter
will have the meaning given to them in the Warrant):

         1.       The Company will permit the warrant to be transferred without
                  an accompanying transfer of the Preferred Stock held by the
                  Fund;

         2.       In the event the Company shall exercise its rights under
                  Section 2.3 of the Warrant to call the Warrant and the Fund
                  shall subsequently exercise the Warrant in accordance with
                  Section 2.3(b) of the Warrant, the Company shall extend the
                  time that the Fund shall have to pay the Exercise Price for a
                  period of twenty-four (24) months;

         3.       The Company will file a Form SB-2 registration statement with
                  the Securities Exchange Commission seeking registration of the
                  4,965,556 shares of its Common Stock issuable upon the
                  exercise of the Warrant on or before March 31, 2001; and

         4.       In consideration of the Company's covenants set forth in items
                  1-3 above, the Fund has agreed to purchase Two Hundred
                  Thousand dollars ($200,000) of the Units offered for sale by
                  the Company in the upcoming offering to accredited investors.

If the foregoing accurately reflects the terms of the agreement we have
reached, please so indicate in the space provide below on the additional
enclosed copy of the letter and return it to me.


Very Truly Yours,

/s/ Richard D. Ekstrom
----------------------------
Richard D. Ekstrom
President


Acknowledged and Agreed:

CEO Venture Fund III

By /s/ James Colker
----------------------------
Title: Managing General Partner



            Demegen, Inc. o 1051 Brinton Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15221
                       o 412-241-2150 o Fax 412-241-2161
EC

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Dr., Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919) 484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

TO: Project File

FROM: Jeff Harris, EC/R Inc.

DATE: January 4, 2012

SUBJECT: ADDENDUM: Estimation of airflow for ferroalloys facility building ventilation 

baghouses

__________________________________________________________________________

The Lat/Long Coordinates for the buildings mentioned in the previous memo are as follows:

Felman :

Building containing EAF# 2,5, & 7

Latitude: 38.957739°

Longitude: -81.926257°

Eramet: 

EAF #1

Latitude: 39.369621°

Longitude: -81.521385°

EAF #12

Latitude: 39.368836°

Longitude: -81.524747°

CCMA:

Building containing EAF #15 & 16

Latitude: 37.057256°

Longitude: -88.348616°

A .kmz file containing these locations for use with Google Earth is attached.
Exhibit 23.1

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800
EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

March 14, 2014

Mr. Daniel Gonzalez

YPFS.A.

Macacha Guemes 515

C1106BKK Buenos Aires

Argentina

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the
reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the section Internal Controls on Reserves and Reserves Audits, and to the inclusion of our third-party letter report dated August 30, 2013, and as an exhibit in YPF S.A.s
report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Our third-party letter report contains our independent estimates of the proved crude oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, gasoline,
marketable gas, and oil equivalent reserves as of October 1, 2013, of certain selected properties in the Gulf of Mexico, the Texas Panhandle region, and western Oklahoma in which YPF S.A. holds interests.



Very truly yours,LOGODeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONTexas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONDALEE MORRIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. SANDOVAL, RN; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-55735

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01305-JAH-NLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 14, 2013** 

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Condalee Morris appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction

FILED

AUG 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-55735

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,

1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Morris’s action because Morris failed

to allege facts demonstrating that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive

risk to his health or failed to provide him with prompt medical treatment. See Jett

v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish deliberate indifference

based on a delay in treatment, a prisoner must show that the delay resulted in

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain);

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to an inmate’s health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to

amend because the deficiencies in Morris’s complaint could not be cured by

amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be

given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

Morris’s contention that the district court should have allowed discovery is

unpersuasive. 
3 12-55735

Defendants’ request to strike portions of Morris’s opening brief, set forth in

their answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENNIS L. ECHOLS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 04-243 Erie

v. )

)

JOANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s social security complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on August

26, 2004, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11], filed on

August 26, 2005, recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

No. 7] be granted, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9] be

denied, and that the matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration for

further proceedings. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to

file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendant. 

Defendant has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and

Recommendation. After de novo review of the documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

No. 7] is GRANTED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9]

is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Social

Security Administration for further proceedings. 

Case 1:04-cv-00243-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 26, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cv-00243-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  46,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,600
<INVENTORY>                                    33,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               91,367
<PP&E>                                         17,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                108,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,769
<BONDS>                                        28,378
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           65
<OTHER-SE>                                     46,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  108,729
<SALES>                                       174,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              174,857
<CGS>                                         144,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 144,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  373
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,745
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .27



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARA ALICIA GONZALEZ-CASTILLO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70702 

Agency No. A208-449-182 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1, 2022**

Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Sara Alicia Gonzalez-Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for 

* 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

JUN 8 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70702 

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”).

1

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ concluded that Gonzalez-Castillo was not credible, which precluded 

her from establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. See Shrestha v. 

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Absent [the] discredited testimony, 

there is no objective evidence that establishes a ‘clear probability’ that upon return 

to [his country the petitioner] will be subject to persecution based on a protected 

ground.”). The BIA determined that Gonzalez-Castillo waived any challenge to 

that adverse credibility determination by failing to raise one in her brief to the BIA.

In this petition for review, she did not raise, and has therefore waived, any 

challenge to the BIA’s waiver determination. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 

F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that an issue not contested in an 

opening brief is waived). Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

1 Gonzalez-Castillo conceded before the IJ that her asylum application was 

untimely, and she did not seek to establish eligibility for an exception to the 

deadline. Accordingly, only her claims for withholding of removal and CAT 

protection were before the BIA.
3 19-70702 

because Gonzalez-Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not she will be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El 

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.