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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

DANEYELLE JACKSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50171

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01325-MMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Daneyelle Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. We have

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

FILED

FEB 27 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

13-50171
Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to

calculate the applicable Guidelines range; (2) failing to adequately explain the

sentence; (3) failing to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (4)

relying on improper factors. We review for plain error, see United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Jackson

has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a different

sentence had the court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range or explained why

it adopted the range applicable to Jackson’s underlying offense rather than the

range provided in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755,

762 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the district court adequately addressed the relevant

sentencing factors and did not rely on any impermissible factor. See United States

v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006). 

To the extent Jackson contends that her sentence is substantively

unreasonable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jackson’s

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality

of the circumstances, including Jackson’s repeated probation violations. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50171
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



COOPERS                             COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
& LYBRAND
                                    a professional service firm



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Morrison Knudsen Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 033-81038, 333-32511 and
333-39351) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a
change in method of accounting for impairment of long-lived assets in 1996 and
an emphasis of a matter paragraph regarding an environmental contingency, dated
February 2, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Morrison Knudsen Corporation as of November 30,
1997 and 1996, and for each of the two years in the period ended November 30,
1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boise, Idaho
February 4, 1998
No. 9640.

#### The Board of County Commissioners *v.*Howett.

(Decided November 2, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Shelby County.

*Mr. H. W. Robinson*and *Mr. John F.*Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. D. Barnes*and *Mr. Hugh Doorley,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-114 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CULTURAL PROPERTY 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHINA 

Signed at Washington January 14, 2009 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CHINA 

Cultural Property 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Washington January 14, 2009; 

 Entered into force January 14, 2009.
#### Michael Robert COACHMAN, Appellant, v. John Peter KIERECKI and Linda Marie Melko, Appellees.

No. 68-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 12, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended April 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Varian, Inc.



Dated: May 12, 2010



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ GARRY W.
ROGERSON                                 
|Garry W. Rogerson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be
retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3690 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3690

**Commission Decision of 14/02/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3690 - CNP / CAPITALIA / FINECO VITA) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the Italian text is authentic) **

*

*

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3690 — CNP/Capitalia/Fineco Vita)

(2005/C 42/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Italian and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

- from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

- in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3690. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

--------------------------------------------------
#### Calloway BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39512.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 24, 1970.

Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and W. Ford Duane, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

DREW, Justice.

This case comes here by petition for certiorari supported by a certificate of the District Court of Appeal that the decision there passes upon a question of great public interest.1

No useful purpose would be served by an extended opinion of this Court. All facets of this troublesome question have been fully explored by the district court in the able majority and dissenting opinions and the copious authorities referred to in both opinions.

We are of the view that the majority opinion — a view supported by the majority of the courts over the country — should be and the same is hereby approved in all respects and adopted as the decision of this Court.

Much of the uncertainty concerning the question of what constitutes a felony under the constitution and laws of the state seems to have arisen out of the opinion of this Court in the case of Adams v. Elliott.2 Whatever is stated in that case or whatever inferences may be drawn from that case contrary to the conclusions reached in the majority opinion below are hereby receded from and overruled.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

1

. Brown v. State, 232 So.2d 55 (4th Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1970).

2

. 128 Fla. 79, 174 So. 731 (1937).

ERVIN, Chief Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority opinion herein to the extent of agreeing that the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor under F.S. Section 810.05, F.S.A., may be a felony dependent upon the penalty actually imposed. I do not believe it is necessary in this case or similar cases where second offender situations are involved to rigidly determine the *130status of the person charged for a second offense only by the nature of the language of the statute under which the first offense was charged.

It appears to me that when one is charged with a crime which may be punished either as a felony or as a misdemeanor, as e. g., under F.S. Section 810.05, F.S.A., the penalty actually imposed — either imprisonment in the state prison denoting the crime committed constituted a felony; or imprisonment in the county jail, or a fine, denoting the crime to be a misdemeanor— would be conclusive in determining later whether the convicted person could be charged as a second felony offender. If he was imprisoned in the state prison he could be so charged; if not, he could not be. Compare People v. Hamilton, 1948, 33 Cal.2d 45, 198 P.2d 873; People v. Trimble, 1936, 18 Cal.App.2d 350, 63 P.2d 1173. See also 95 A.L.R. 1112.

It seems harsh that one drawing a $50.00 fine under F.S. Section 810.05, F.S.A., would have that count as a first offense felony in a second offender case.
# L_2005269EN.01001301.xml

| 14.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1673/2005

of 13 October 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 11 October 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 11 October 2005.

| (3) | The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 11 October 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 12,49 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 October 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2005 (OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 32).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

3

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Periodic Financial Report  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Each of the undersigned officers of Dyax Corp. (the "Company") certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 12, 2010

/s/ GUSTAV A. CHRISTENSEN Gustav A. Christensen Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 12, 2010

/s/ GEORGE MIGAUSKY George Migausky Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
# The Attorney General of Texas May 10, 1978 JOHN L.HILL Attorney General
Honorable Ben Z. Grant Chairmen House Judiciary Committee State Capitol Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. H- 1165 Re: Use of public property or services for private benefit.
Dear Representative Grant: The Judiciary Committee has requested an opinion as to whether: 1. an elected official, employee, or appointee of the State, County or Municipal Government can use for private profit or benefit to himself, any property, supplies, equipment, or other things of value belonging to the State, County or Municipalities, and 2. whether or not elected officials, employees or appointees of the State, County or Municipal Government can knowingly use orknowingly permit to be used for private profit to himself the labor or services of any person whose labor or services ispaid for by the State, County or Municipal Government. Your inquiry isprompted perhaps by the repeal of article 9780 of the former Penal Code. This article expressly prohibited such official misconduct, assessing a maximum penalty of a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine and two years imprisonment. This article was repealed with the passage of the current Penal Code. Acts 1973,63rd Leg., ch. 399, S3, at 993. The misconduct about which you inquire isclearly prohibited by current law and there isno implication that the Legislature in repealing article 9780 intended to lift criminal sanctions from such conduct. The Legislature consolidated such offenses under Penal Code chapter 31, which concerns theft.

P. 4713

### Honorable BenZ.Grant - Page 2 (H-1165)
Misappropriation of public property by public employees ‘or officials for private benefit constitutes theft under section 31.03ofthe Penal Code ifthere is intent to exercise unlawful control over property owned by the state or other governmental entity. Similarly, misuse of public labor or services for private benefit constitutes theft ofservice under section 3LO4ofthe Penal Code. SUMMARY Useofpublic property, labor, orservices byapublic official or employee for private benefit constitutes the offense of theft. 

### m-Y-&$

.’I ; ,/ Attorney General 

### ofTexas 

# .%L+

DAVIDM.KENDALL.First Assistant

C.ROBERTHEATH.Chairman Opinion Commitiee jst



### P. 4714
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3677 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3677

**Commission Decision of 14/02/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3677 - DANSKE BANK / NATIONAL EUROPE HOLDINGS / NORTHERN BANK INSURANCE SERVICES) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 14-II-2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/200649

To the notifying party

Dear Sirs,

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3677-Danske Bank/National Europe Holdings/Northern Bank Insurance Service Notification of 14.01.2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 20, date 25.01.2005.

1. On 14.01.2005 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Danske Bank A/S (“Danske Bank”, Denmark) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings National Europe Holdings Ltd (“NEHIL”, Ireland) and Northern Bank Insurance Services Limited (“NBIS”, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for Danske Bank: financial services, mainly in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries;

- for NEHIL: holding company having sole ownership of the National Irish Bank Ltd and the Northern Bank Ltd., operating respectively in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland (UK);

- for NBIS: wealth services and life insurance.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] Available on DG COMP website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
Jump to main content or area navigation.
EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Actel Corporation of our report dated January 22, 2001, included
in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Actel Corporation.

         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Actel
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Actel's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

         We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-74492, 333-3398, 333-71627, 333-36222, 333-43274,
and 333-54652) of our report dated January 22, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Actel Corporation incorporated by reference
in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Actel
Corporation.

                                                           /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
April 2, 2001
US. Deportment Memorandum d lfcnsportotioo 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Subject: 

From: 

23 USC 504(e) Funds , / / 

Warren S. Whitlock // U/Ji;~-J Associate Administr«oYr~r Civil Rights 

Date: APR 7 1 2013 

In Reply Refer To: 

HCR-30 

To: Division Administrators 

Division Civil Rights Specialists 

Under 23 U.S.C. § 504(e) (Section 504(e)), States are permitted to apply funds from the 

National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Program, Highway 

Safety Improvement Program, or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

Program to support surface transportation workforce development. That section defines 

"surface transportation workforce development" to include "training and professional 

development for surface transportation workers, including activities for women and 

minorities." Section 504( e )(I )(A) permits funds to be used for "tuition and direct 

educational expenses, excluding salaries, in connection with the education and training of 

employees of State and local transportation agencies." 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has traditionally advised State Departments of 

Transportation (STAs) that 504(e) funds could be used to supplement projects pertaining 

to the On-the-Job Training Supportive Services program (OJT/SS), as those programs 

typically involve workforce training. Our office previously advised STAs that these funds 

could not supplement programs funded through Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

Supportive Services (DBE/SS) dollars, as those programs involve training for businesses 

as opposed to individuals. 

However, after further research, the Office of Civil Rights, in coordination with the Office 

of Chief Counsel, has concluded that, under the broad authority of Section 504( e), 

DBE/SS projects providing services to small businesses owned by socially and 

economically disadvantaged individuals, also constitute training and professional 

development for surface transportation workers; therefore, FHW A would like to notify 

Divisions that Section 504(e) funds may be used to supplement approved DBE/SS 

projects as well as OJT/SS projects. 

Of course, the use of 504(e) funds to supplement traditional OJT and DBE/SS funding is 

strictly optional and based upon each STA's discretion; however, we believe this policy 

will allow greater flexibility in providing quality training programs for transportation 

workers and small and disadvantaged business owners. 

If you need further assistance please feel free to contact Martha Kenley of FHW A at 

martha.kenley@dot. gov.