alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE SANDOVAL-VALADEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-3231 

(D.C. No. 6:08-CR-10223-JWB-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Jose Sandoval-Valadez pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated identity 

theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. He was sentenced to 48 months’ 

imprisonment, to run consecutively to an Arizona state court sentence of 12 years and 

11 months that he is currently serving. Although the plea agreement contained an 

appeal waiver, Mr. Sandoval-Valadez appealed. The government moves to enforce 

the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(en banc) (per curiam). 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 23, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the

scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Mr. Sandoval-Valadez’s counsel filed 

a response to the government’s motion, stating a belief that there are no non-frivolous 

grounds to oppose the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and requesting permission 

to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (authorizing 

counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel determines that appeal 

would be wholly frivolous). Mr. Sandoval-Valadez then filed a pro se response 

stating that the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver should be granted. 

We have independently reviewed the parties’ filings and the record, and we 

conclude that the requirements for enforcing the appeal waiver under Hahn have been 

satisfied. Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver, grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: Project No.: 0172.08.005.607 Page 1 of 1
Project Name: 2011 Prelim Cat Rev 

### CBI? Yes No TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Incoming Outgoing Date: 05/5/11 Time: 12:53 am pm

Company Name: West Virginia DEP ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Landick

Contact Name: Renee Clevenger Contact Phone Number: (304) 926-0495 ext. 1016 General Subject: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On May 5, 2011 at 1pm I called WV DEP and left a message for Debbie McCann (ext. 1574) requesting confirmation on 2009 DMR lead discharges for Alcan Rolled Products in Ravenswood, WV (WV0115932).

On May 10, 2011 at 2pm I called the Division of Wa ter and Waste Management of the WV DEP (304-926- 0495). I spoke with John Morgan first who then transf erred me to Tonya Phillips (ext. 1010). I explained to Tonya that I wanted to confirm Lead discharges from Alcan Rolled Products. She ex plained that she would look into it and get back to me shortly.

On May 10, 2011 at 3:20pm Renee Clevenger from the WV DEP returned my call (ext. 1016). She confirmed that the values in 2009 are listed as 5 mg/L in DMR. She stated that all measurements were non-detect or below the minimum detection limit (10 mg/L) and so 1⁄2 the detect ion limit is shown in the DMR database (which is 5 mg/L). The values should be corrected to 10 mg/L and a below detection limit (BDL) i ndicator should be added.
NJDEP HZRESULT Error Report

File: C:\Datamgt\NJ EDD\cwk\DGW 2H10\PFOA\HZRESULT

Date: 03/21/2011 16:23

Errors#: (714)

Rec# Field Error Description Bad Value

1 NJDLABCERT Field length is too long, see CANA005

SRP-EDI.

* (689) instances of this error -

* only the first one is reported.

954 NJDLABCERT Mandatory field has been left blank. Null

* (25) instances of this error -

* only the first one is reported.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 1995 and 1994
                                                                    
                                                                   
                                                                  
 Area                                                            
                              Fourth    Fourth    Standard    Standard
                             quarter   quarter    error on    error on
                               1995      1994    1995 rate  difference
                                                                       
 United States.............    65.1      64.2        0.2         0.2
                                                                   
   Inside MAs..............    62.9       NA         0.2          NA
     In central cities.....    49.3       NA         0.3          NA
     Not in central cities                                          
     (suburbs).............    71.7       NA         0.2          NA
   Outside MAs.............    73.9       NA         0.4          NA
                                                                    
  Northeast................    61.6      61.4        0.4         0.6
  Midwest..................    70.1      68.6        0.3         0.5
  South....................    67.5      65.7        0.3         0.4
  West.....................    59.0      59.6        0.4         0.5
                                                                        
                                                                        
 NA Not available.
Exhibit 32        Section 1350
Certifications.

---

# Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Beach First National Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
               with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
               Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
               15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/  Walter E. Standish, III
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | Walter E. Standish, III     
| |  | Chief Executive Officer     
| |  | May 11, 2006                

| |  | /s/  Richard N. Burch  
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | Richard N. Burch       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 11, 2006
No. 11483.

#### The City of Toledo v. Bangor.

Decided January 18, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. Charles S. Northup,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Charles H. Masters,*for plaintiff in 'error.

*Messrs. Sala & Carabin,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed

and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed on the ground that while the doctrine of *Railway Co.*v. *Frye,*80 Ohio St., 289, is adhered to, it is without application in the present case. And this court proceeding to render the judgment the circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of said court of common pleas be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.'

Summers, C. J., Crew, Davis, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur.
rourien

DEPARTMENT OF COMMEROE AND LASOR-BUREAU OF THE OBNBUS

‘SuPenisoms OISTRET No.

JHIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1810—POPULA Exuuerarion OistmCT Ho
ste fa Lath bf)

LLastit

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.orchives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Tacanid

pesanueesees
RTE

aad,

i

“RR

A)

i

piaedavenes

i

TAY PEEP OE TEE EY

ay
ik

a
tt

i.

aa
x

ia,
“i

rad
#### Easter Mae TILLMAN, Appellant, v. Bobbie Jean BASKIN and Elizabeth Benton, Appellees.

No. 70-403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Russell Troutman and Sidney H. Parrish, of Law Offices of Russell Troutman, Winter Park, for appellant.

R. G. Ross of Pitts, Eubanks & Ross, Orlando, for appellees.

WALDEN, Judge.

This was a gross negligence case tried non-jury.

The trial judge granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case and thereafter entered final judgment. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

As concerns the evidence, it was adequate to withstand such motion under the criteria that obtains in jury trials. See discussion at 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 83 et seq. Plaintiff’s appellate presentation supposes that these criteria are available here and she argues that there were inferences that favored her case and relies upon Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806.

But, as stated, *this was a non-jury trial.*In non-jury trials, a motion for directed verdict is tantamount to a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 1.-420(b), 30 F.S.A.1 Thus, the trial judge *749as trier of the fact was governed by different criteria and was entitled to weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. If in this light the court finds that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to merit judgment, the court may enter judgment at that point for the defendant. Gibson v. Gibson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 388; Johnson v. Harris, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 888; John I. Moss Inc. v. Cobbs Company, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 872; Lorber v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1968, 207 So.2d 305. See also Dodge v. Weiss, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 71; and Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 711.

We have reviewed the evidence and are of the opinion, in light of the presumption of correctness that attends the judgment appealed, that reversible error has not been demonstrated.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.

1

. “ * * * After a party seeking affirmative relief in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of his evidence, any other party may move for a dismissal on the ground that on the facts and the law the party seeking affirmative relief has shown no right to relief, without waiving the right to offer evidence if the motion is not granted. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the party seeking affirmative relief or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue or for lack of an indispensable party, operates as an adjudication on the merits.” In Gibson v. Gibson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 388, it was held, “Under the rules of procedure presently effective in this state, a motion for directed verdict made by defendant in a nonjury case should be treated and disposed of as a motion for involuntary dismissal * *
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

                         
                        

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
                            
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         493,597
<SECURITIES>                                   121,167
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               799,069
<PP&E>                                         10,603,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,262,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,448,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          336,458
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,280,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,448,953
<SALES>                                        1,852,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,852,877
<CGS>                                          749,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  920,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (22,646)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             476,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (270,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (270,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (270,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.88
        


</TABLE>
Administrator 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Suite 400, The Atrium 

1200 North Street 

P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 

Dear Ms. Schneider: 

Thank you for the recommendations regarding the attainment status selected areas in Nebraska under the 

2010 sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality standard that your agency sent us on September 18, 

2015. As you know, we are subject to a March 2, 2015, court order directing us to promulgate SOz 

designations for these areas under section 107 of the Clean Air Act by July 2, 2016. Specifically, we are 

required to promulgate designations for these areas because they contain sources meeting the SOz 

emissions criteria identified in the consent decree. The information you provided on September 18, 

2015, will greatly help us meet this duty, and ensure protection of public health in Nebraska. 

In addition to the information you have provided, we have recently received modeling and related 

information from the Sierra Club that is relevant to a subset of the areas to be addressed by July 2, 2016. 

In your state, we have received information pertinent to the area near the following power plants: NPPD 

Sheldon Station and NPPD Gerald Gentleman. We have already provided this information to your staff. 

Please let us know if you have any questions about the information we have received or if you need any 

additional information. 

I am writing to solicit your review of the information that Sierra Club has provided, so that the U.S 

Environment Protection Agency can base its designations decisions on the best available information. 

The Clean Air Act provides for designations to be developed through a partnership of state agencies and 

the EPA; however, we also believe it is important to consider significant and relevant information that 

members of the public provide to us. Consistent with the structure of the Clean Air Act, we believe that 

the best first step in addressing this information would be for your agency to provide its review of this 

information. Since the Sierra Club's recommendation differs from your recommendation, we would 

welcome your commentary generally on the information as well as your detailed review of the elements 

of Sierra Club's analysis. To the extent practicable, we would appreciate quantitative comparisons of 

data used in Sierra Club's analysis compared to the data used in your analysis, to help us evaluate the 

elements of the two analyses. 

®Printed on Recycled Paper 
Becky Weber 

Director 

Air and Waste Management Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000072741
<NAME> NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    6,463,158
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    704,701
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         970,673
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,275,880
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,414,412
<COMMON>                                       684,211
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      932,493
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            707,522
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,170,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          245,750
<PREFERRED>                                    136,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,645,659
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              50,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  244,560
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       30,250
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     30,427
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               177,304
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,684,177
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               10,414,412
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,834,806
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,948
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,631,374
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,644,024
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        190,782
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (29,179)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 172,305
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       271,981
<NET-INCOME>                                   (99,676)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     30,286
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 (129,962)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        32,134
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      282,095
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         377,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
Exhibit 12.1

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  EXHIBIT 12.1COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

The following table sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003,
computed by dividing net fixed charges (interest expense on all debt plus the interest element (one-third) of operating leases) into earnings (earnings before income taxes and fixed
charges).

|                                          |                                    | Years Ended December 31,
|----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------
|
|
|Net (loss) earnings                       |                                    | $                       
|Income tax (benefit) expense              |                                    |                         
|Interest expense                          |                                    |                         
|Interest portion of rental expense        |                                    |                         
|                                          |                                    |                         
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges |                                    | $                       
|                                          |                                    |                         
|Fixed charges:                            |                                    |                         
|                                          | Interest expense                   |                         
|                                          | Interest portion of rental expense |                         
|                                          |                                    |                         
|                                          |                                    | Total fixed charges     
|                                          |                                    |                         
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        |                                    |                         
|                                          |                                    |                         

---



QuickLinks
AFS-12-367-E 

 June 14, 2012 

 Exemption No. 9814B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1352 

Mr. Nicholas R. Herman II 

Training Director 

Toledo City School District d.b.a. 

 Aerospace Center 

Toledo Express Airport 

11791 West Airport Service Road 

Swanton, OH 43558 

Dear Mr. Herman: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9814, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 11, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Toledo City School District d.b.a. Aerospace Center (Aerospace) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 9814, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aerospace students to take the knowledge exam upon completion 

of the requirements of the general curriculum. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aerospace. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9814, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9814, as amended, to 

January 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9814, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9814. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service