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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

JESSE MINOAKA KANESHIRO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 10006

D.C. No. 1:16

- cr

- 00516

- SOM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Jesse Minoaka Kaneshiro appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

. Pursuant to

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Kaneshiro’ s counsel has filed a bri ef

stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

* 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 29 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 10006

counsel of record. We have provided Kaneshiro the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our ind ependent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for reli ef.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.5
                                AMENDMENT NO. 5
                             1991 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                             VSI ENTERPRISES, INC.


         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of VSI Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") has previously adopted, as amended, and the shareholders of the
Company have approved, the 1991 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") pursuant to
which options to purchase stock of the Company may be issued to eligible
directors, officers and key employees of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company deems it desirable to
further amend the Plan as provided herein;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended upon the terms, and subject to the
conditions, set forth herein:

                                   ARTICLE I

                               AMENDMENTS TO PLAN

         1.1      Section 4 of the Plan shall be amended by deleting the first
sentence thereof in its entirety and substituting the following new sentence
therefor:

         "An aggregate of 3,662,057 Shares will be authorized and reserved for
         issuance upon the exercise of Options granted under the Plan."


                                   ARTICLE II

                          EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT

         2.1      The amendment effected hereby shall be effective for options
granted under the Plan on or after the date this amendment is approved by the
Board of Directors of the Company, but subject to approval of a majority of the
shares of Common Stock of the Company entitled to vote thereon represented in
person and by proxy at a meeting of shareholders. In the event shareholder
approval of adoption of this amendment is not obtained within twelve months of
the date this amendment is approved by the Board of Directors of the Company,
then any option granted in the intervening period to persons who are not
officers, directors or employees of the Company or any subsidiary of the
Company, shall be void.


                                      57
50353.

#### KNIGHTON v. FNB FINANCIAL COMPANY.

Quillian, Judge.

Appeal in this case was taken from the order of the trial judge dismissing the appellant’s appeal of a prior order and judgment. The appellee moved in the trial court to dismiss the appeal and pursuant to such motion a hearing was held at which the trial judge entered an order which recited: "Evidence and argument by counsel for both parties having been heard, and it appearing to this court that said defendant neither caused the transcript to be filed within the time required by law nor obtained an extension of time for so doing as required by law, and it further appearing from the evidence, both oral and documentary, that said defendant did not even order the transcript until more than 30 days after filing of the notice of appeal,” the appeal is dismissed. The hearing was held on November 11,1974, and the order of dismissal entered by the trial judge on November 20, 1974. *Held:*

In a recent opinion the Supreme Court has set forth the following rule: "[Tjhe Appellate Practice Act requires that appeals from final judgments be determined on their merits if at all possible, and the absence in the appellate *808record of existing transcripts or documents, available in the trial court, is not ground to refuse consideration of enumerated errors on their merits.” *Interstate Financial Corp. v. Appel,*233 Ga. 649, 651 (212 SE2d 821).

Submitted March 10, 1975

Decided May 13, 1975.

*Spence & Knighton, Judson R. Knighton,*for appellant.

*Lazarus, Stokes & Kaplan, John H. Watson, Sumner & Mitchell, Douglas*W. *Mitchell, III,*for appellee.

It should be noted in this case that there is a certificate by the court reporter to the effect that from November 11 through the time of the filing of the appeal in this case that no transcript of the proceedings with regard to the hearing on that date, November 11, has been requested by either party. Hence, there is no transcript of the hearing on file in the lower court. That being true, the order of the trial judge reciting facts showing that the appellant was at fault in failing to procure the timely filing of a transcript must be presumed to be supported by sufficient evidence and the judgment entered thereon must be affirmed. *Darsey v. Darsey,*232 Ga. 381 (207 SE2d 22).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Panned, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
#### Oliver COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BT-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Sharon Bradley, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals those portions of five judgments and sentences, in which he was found guilty of seven counts of uttering a *298forgery and sentenced to probation. As a condition of probation, the trial judge imposed the requirement that he not live with his mother. The challenged condition does not fall within the category of enumerated conditions in section 948.03, Florida Statutes, which may be broadly imposed as conditions of probation. Further, the record, the trial judge, and the State have all failed to set forth any rational relationship between the crimes of which appellant was convicted and the challenged condition, nor has any relationship been established between the possibility of future criminal conduct and the challenged condition. Consequently, the condition was improper in the instant case and is hereby stricken. *Bodden v. State,*411 So.2d 1391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); *Rodriguez v. State,*378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); *Brodus v. State,*449 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); *Wilkinson v. State,*388 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); *Pratt v. State,*516 So.2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Keith MESSIAH v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KH-0762.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Messiah, Keith; applying for supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. K-7435; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 295-139.

Denied. Relator’s appeal is pending in this Court. See, La.C.Cr.P. art. 924.1.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1747 

For the relief of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia 

Arenas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAVIER 

4 LOPEZ-URENDA AND MARIA LETICIA ARENAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria 

8 Leticia Arenas shall each be eligible for issuance of an 

9 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

10 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil11 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1747 IS

1 section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment 

2 of status to lawful permanent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Javier Lopez4 Urenda or Maria Leticia Arenas enter the United States 

5 before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), that 

6 alien shall be considered to have entered and remained 

7 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad8 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

9 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the 

10 enactment of this Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only to an ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or an applica14 tion for adjustment of status that is filed, with appropriate 

15 fees, within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

16 this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Javier Lopez-Urenda or Maria Leticia Arenas, 

20 the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 

21 reduce by one, during the current or next following fiscal 

22 year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

23 available to natives of the country of that alien’s birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1747 IS

1 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

2 the country of that alien’s birth under section 202(e) of 

3 such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 106 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 106

 Recognizing the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm, 
 Minnesota, as a national symbol of the contributions of Americans of 
                            German heritage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 2000

   Mr. Grams (for himself and Mr. Wellstone) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 
                         and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm, 
 Minnesota, as a national symbol of the contributions of Americans of 
                            German heritage.

Whereas there are currently more than 57,900,000 individuals of German heritage 
        residing in the United States, who comprise nearly 25 percent of the 
        population of the United States and are therefore the largest ethnic 
        group in the United States;
Whereas those of German heritage are not descendants of only 1 political entity, 
        but of all German-speaking areas;
Whereas Americans of German heritage have made countless contributions to 
        American culture, arts, and industry, the American military, and 
        American government;
Whereas there is no nationally recognized tangible symbol dedicated to German 
        Americans and their positive contributions to the United States;
Whereas the story of Hermann the Cheruscan parallels that of the American 
        Founding Fathers, because he was a freedom fighter who united ancient 
        German tribes in order to shed the yoke of Roman tyranny and preserve 
        freedom for the territory of present-day Germany;
Whereas the Hermann Monument located in Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm, 
        Minnesota, was dedicated in 1897 to honor the spirit of freedom and was 
        later dedicated to all German immigrants who settled in New Ulm and 
        elsewhere in the United States; and
Whereas the Hermann Monument has been recognized as a site of special historical 
        significance by the United States Government, by inclusion on the 
        National Register of Historic Places: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm, 
Minnesota, is recognized by Congress as a national symbol of the 
contributions of Americans of German heritage.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gloria H. DeBLOIS v. REPUBLIC/VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 89-C-0404.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re DeBlois, Gloria H., applying for reconsideration of writ denial of March 27, 1989, 540 So.2d 331; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-CA-0552; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, No. 346-807.

Denied. Judgment definitive.
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





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Bonso Electronics International, Inc., a British Virgin Islands international business company (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.





Date:           October 15, 2010





_/s/ Anthony So


Anthony So


President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of PDS, Child, And Concerning, JS (Mother), Respondent-Appellant, and DS (Father), Respondent.

No. 82CA1249.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

July 14, 1983.

Fredrickson, Johnson *&*McDermott, P.C., Warren T. Marshall, Canon City, for petitioner-appellee.

Hawthorne & Meconi, P.C., Rocco F. Me-coni, Canon City, for respondent-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Respondent is the mother of P.D.S., an infant, who was found by the district court to be neglected or dependent under the Colorado Children’s Code, § 19-1-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), and whose physical custody was placed with the mother under a treatment plan. The sole issue on review is whether the district court must adjudicate the child neglected and dependent “as to” one parent only, where it has been stipulated that the child is neglected and dependent but that the other parent is blameless for the child’s condition, and where, in return for this stipulation, the request to terminate parental rights was dismissed. We affirm.

Adjudications of neglect or dependency are not made “as to” the parents, but rather, relate only to the status of the *628child. *See People in Interest of K.S.,*33 Colo.App. 72, 515 P.2d 130 (1973). The provisions of § 19-1-103(20), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8) define a neglected or dependent child, and the provisions of § 19-3-106(6)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) and § 19-3-111(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8) make it plain that an adjudication of dependency or neglect is a determination of the status of the child and no more.

The other arguments in support of reversal are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
#### William George DUGUID, Appellant, v. Deborah Lynn DUGUID, Appellee.

No. 88-416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 23, 1988.

William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.

James G. Roberts and Michael J. Korn of Christian, Prom, Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Husband William George Duguid appeals, and wife Deborah Lynn Duguid cross-appeals, from an order of the trial court granting wife’s motion for modification and enforcement of the final judgment of dissolution. Of the numerous issues raised by both parties, all but one are found to be completely without merit and indeed to border on the frivolous. With regard to the issue on appeal alleging error in the trial court’s requirements that husband pay $5,928.00 in medical day care expenses, and in the future be responsible for *all*of the children’s noncovered medical expenses, a cursory review of the final order in its entirety reveals that the foregoing are no more than clerical errors neither of which, despite numerous post-order motions below, have ever been brought to the attention of the trial court as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We therefore decline to address them further here.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J. and NIMMONS, J., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul SHIFFLETT.

No. 87-KK-2434.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Shifflett, Paul; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and supervisory writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KW-8270; Parish of Orleans, *467Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 319-983.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.6


 


LIFESCI ACQUISITION II CORP.


250 W. 55th St., #3401


New York, NY 10019


 


_____, 2020


 


LifeSci Capital LLC


250 W. 55th St., #3401


New York, NY 10019


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm
our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement
(the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of LifeSci Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i)
the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described
in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
LifeSci Capital LLC (“LC”) shall make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial and
administrative services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 250 W. 55th St., #3401, New York, NY 10019
(or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay LC a sum of $10,000 per month, respectively, on the Effective
Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. LC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest
or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”)
that may be established by the Company for the benefit of the Company’s public stockholders upon the consummation of the
IPO as described in the Registration Statement ( “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in
the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse
against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	LIFESCI ACQUISITION II
    CORP.
	 	 
	 	By:	                              
	 	Name: Andrew McDonald
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer




 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 
	LIFESCI
                                         CAPITAL LLC
	 
	 	 
	By:	                     	 
	Name: Andrew McDonald	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0145 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-059-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters and Bell Helicopter 

Textron Model 412, 412CF, and 412EP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 76 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the high gear aft crosstube and 

subsequent collapse of the landing gear.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $10,351 for the crosstube replacement

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for creating the 

component history card and 

amending the ICA)

(6 work-hour x $85/workhour for the crosstube 

replacement)

$85

$510

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 for creating the component history card and 

amending the ICA

$10,861 for a crosstube replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $6,460 for creating the component history card 

and amending the ICA

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jeffrey Zimmer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2346 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2346

             To extend the reduction of duty on Mesotrione.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To extend the reduction of duty on Mesotrione.

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

SECTION 1. MESOTRIONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Mesotrione) is amended--
            (1) in the general rate of duty column, by striking 
        ``6.11%'' and inserting ``5.1%''; and
            (2) in the effective period column, by striking ``12/31/
        2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Technical Correction.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking 
heading 9902.25.80.
                                 <all>
```