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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

RUBIO GUALBERTO TZIU

- UC,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 30040

D.C. No. 3:14

- cr

- 00100

- HZ

- 12

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Rubio Gualberto Tziu

- Uc appeals pro se from the district court’s order

granting in part and denying in part his motion for return of property under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g)

. We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

* 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

DEC 4 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 30040

Tziu

- Uc contends that the d istrict court erroneously denied his request for

the return of $6,500 in cash with interest . “We review the denial of a motion for

return of property de novo,” and “[w]e review the district court’s factual findings

for clear error.” United States v. Harr ell , 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court ’s finding that the government did not possess the cash in

question is not clearly erroneous, because cash was not listed on the search warrant

return form and Tziu

- Uc failed to present any evide nce demonstrating that the

government possessed the cash . Accordingly, the district court did not err in

denying the motion for return of the cash with interest.

Tziu

- Uc also requests an order for the production of the receipt from the

search, along with the discovery file from his related criminal case. He did not

raise this request before the district court, and he has not shown any valid reason to

allow him to raise it for the first time on appeal. See U nited States v. Flores

Payon , 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1991)

.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 3.6
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
IRVINE SENSORS CORPORATION
 
  FIRST
 SECOND
  THIRD
 FOURTH




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 IRVINE SENSORS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ JOHN C. CARSONJohn C. CarsonChief Executive Officer and President ATTEST:/s/ JOHN J. STUART, JR.

     John J. Stuart, Jr.
     Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice
     President and Secretary
 -2-
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Vision Systems Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yaron Menashe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





July14,2011
/S/ Yaron Menashe

Yaron Menashe

Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia:
        H.R. 6463.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, specifically, ``. . . a 
     regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and 
     Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
     to time.''
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ONHEALTH
NETWORK COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          8,854
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     774
<ALLOWANCES>                                      286
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,133
<PP&E>                                          2,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                    921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,994
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          162
<OTHER-SE>                                      7,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,297
<SALES>                                           781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  781
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,936)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.83)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In
connection with the quarterly report of First National Energy Corporation
(the "Registrant"), on Form 10-Q /A for the fiscal quarter ending March
31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, I,
Peter Wanner, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) 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
Registrant.







Date:
      May 20 ,
      2010By:
      /s/ Peter WannerPeter
      Wanner
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21343-21344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08277]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9944-85-Region 1]

2016 Spring Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and 
the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is 
announcing the joint 2016 Spring Meeting of the Ozone Transport 
Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-
level ozone precursors and matters relative to Regional Haze and 
visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant 
context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 3, 2016 starting at 9:15 a.m. 
and ending at 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Palomar Philadelphia, 117 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, 
PA 19103, 215-563-5006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport 
Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC 
20001; (202) 508-3840; email: ozone@otcair.org; Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain 
at section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air 
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 
comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The 
purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, 
transport, and control within the OTR.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed in 
2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-
VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the 
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC 
office (202) 508-3840; by email: ozone@

[[Page 21344]]

otcair.org or via the OTC Web site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: March 28, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 2016-08277 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
EXHIBIT 10.36


                             BUFORD INDUSTRIES INC.


February 20, 2002


Brian MacDonald
IVP Technology Corporation
2275 Lakeshore Blvd. West, Suite 401
Toronto, Ontario
M8V3Y3

Dear Brian:

         RE:      PLACEMENT OF IVP TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (IVP)
                  MANAGEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF FEE

Further to our  original  agreement  dated July 31, 2001 and our  discussion  of
February  19,  2001 I am writing to confirm  the terms of our  understanding  in
which Buford  Industries  Inc. has agreed to convert the USD  50,000.00  initial
payment for consulting fees into equity of IVP.

As per our  discussion  one million  (1,000,000)  common shares of IVP are to be
issued to Buford  Industries  Inc. at yesterday's  trading price of USD 0.05 per
common share in settlement of the first USD 50,000.00.

The  common  shares  in  question  are to be  issued  as  soon as  possible  and
registered  on some  basis  consistent  with U.S.  securities  regulations  that
renders them "free trading".

Buford Industries Inc.


Per:  /S/ PATRICK KEAVENY                             Dated:  February 26, 2002
      -------------------                                     -----------------


We agree with your understanding of the terms of agreement as set out above:
IVP Technology Corporation


Per:   /S/ BRIAN MACDONALD                            Dated:  February 26, 2002
       -------------------                                    -----------------
       Brian MacDonald
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1462 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1462

   To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to provide that imported 
tomatoes are subject to packing standards contained in marketing orders 
    issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 11, 1995

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to provide that imported 
tomatoes are subject to packing standards contained in marketing orders 
    issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SUBJECTION OF IMPORTED TOMATOES TO PACKING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-
1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``or maturity'' and inserting ``, 
                maturity, or (with respect to tomatoes) packing''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and maturity'' and inserting 
                ``maturity, and (with respect to tomatoes) packing''; 
                and
            (2) in the second sentence by striking ``and maturity'' and 
        inserting ``maturity, and (with respect to tomatoes) packing''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
     Form 10-Q
    November 12, 2008Date

By /s/ Shannon K S
    JohnsonShannon
    K S Johnson

Chief Financial Officer
    (principal financial officer)   Form 10-Q
EXHIBIT 10.52
 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
OF RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.
 Restricted Stock Unit Agreement
(Performance-Based and Service-Based Award)
  R E C I T A L S :
   Incorporation of Plan
 Certain Defined Terms




---



##### 



Award Opportunity; Incorporation of the Terms of Schedule A of the Agreement.
  The Participant expressly acknowledges that the terms of Schedule A shall be
incorporated herein by reference and shall constitute part of this Agreement. The
Corporation and the Participant further acknowledge that the Corporations signature on the
signature page hereof, and the Participants signature on the Grant Letter contained in
Schedule A, shall constitute their acceptance of all of the terms of this Agreement.
 Grant of Award of Restricted Stock Units
 Dividends and Voting Rights
 2




---



##### 



Vesting of Award
 The Participant expressly acknowledges that the Award shall
vest only upon such terms and conditions as are provided in Schedule A of this Agreement and
otherwise in accordance with the terms of the Plan.
  Effect of Termination of Employment; Forfeiture of Award
 Settlement of Award
 No Right of Continued Employment or Service
 Nontransferability of Award and Shares
 3




---



##### 



Withholding; Tax Consequences
   Administration
 Superseding Agreement; Binding Effect
 Governing Law
 4




---



##### 



Amendment and Termination; Waiver
 Notices
 Severability
 Restrictions on Award and Shares
 Counterparts; Further Instruments
 [Signature Page to Follow]
 5




---



##### 



RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.By:Robert A. Bruggeworth
President and Chief Executive OfficerAttest:William Priddy
Secretary & Chief Financial Officer
 [Signature page of Participant to follow on Schedule A/Grant Letter]
 6




---



##### 



2003 Stock Incentive Plan of RF Micro Devices, Inc.
Restricted Stock Unit Agreement
(Performance-Based and Service-Based Award)
 Schedule A/Grant Letter
 Award Opportunity
    Threshold Number of Shares (50% of Target):75% of Target:Target Number of Shares (100% of Target):125% of Target:Maximum Number of Shares (150% of Target):
  Performance Objectives
 Vesting of Award
  A-1




---



##### 



By my signature below, I further agree to be
bound by the terms of the Plan and the Agreement, including but not limited to the terms of this
Grant Letter and the other provisions of Schedule A contained herein. The Corporation reserves the
right to treat the Award and the Agreement as cancelled, void and of no effect if the Participant
fails to return a signed copy of the Grant Letter within 30 days of receipt
 Signature:
    
    
    
    Date:
 Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name shown above, please make the appropriate
corrections on this form and return to Todd Bender, RF Micro Devices, Inc., 7628 Thorndike Road,
Greensboro, NC 27409-9421. Please retain a copy of the Agreement, including this Grant Letter, for
your files.
 A-2
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

|
|
|

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No.
333-134591), Form F-3 (File No. 333-114153) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-12456) of Elbit
Vision Systems Ltd. (the Company) of our report dated July 14, 2005,
which appears in the Companys 2006 Annual Report on Form 20-F.

|              |                                    
|------------- | -----------------------------------
|              | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman          
|Haifa, Israel | Kesselman & Kesselman              
|July 11, 2007 | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)



---

---
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-12-00379-CV

_________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.A.O.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-193,065-A

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Michael A. Odoms, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The 

motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed a notice of appeal. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Opinion Delivered November 1, 2012

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
EMMIS AUSTIN RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY, L.P.

The undersigned partners of Emmis Austin Radio Broadcasting Company, L.P.
(hereinafter referred to as the Partnership) hereby amend the Amended and
Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership (the Partnership
Agreement) as follows:

Section 1. The exact text of Article VIII, Section 8.1 of the Partnership
Agreement now reads as follows:

Dissolution. The Partnership shall be dissolved upon the occurrence of
any of the following:

(a) The occurrence of an event of withdrawal from the Partnership
by the General Partner as provided for in the Act.

(b) The consent in writing of the General Partner and all the Limited
Partners.

(c) The occurrence of any event which, under the Act, causes the
dissolution of a limited partnership.

Section 2. The exact text of Article VIII, Section 8.2 of the Partnership
Agreement now reads as follows:

Reconstitution. Upon the dissolution of the Partnership as a
result of an event described in Section 8.1(a) or 8.1(c) or, to
the extent permitted under the Act, the Partnership may be
reconstituted and its business continued without being wound up as
provided in Section 8.03 of the Act, and the provisions of Section
6.02 of the Act shall be applicable.

Section 3. In all other respects, the Partnership Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

This First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership is effective as of August 31, 2003.

EMMIS OPERATING COMPANY
    
    RADIO AUSTIN MANAGEMENT,L.L.CBy:
    
    
    
    By:Printed:
    
    
    
    Printed:Its:
    
    
    
    Its:SINCLAIR TELECABLE, INCBy:Printed:Its:
#### Kauffman *v.*United Engineering & Foundry Company et al., Appellants.

Argued April 20, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Baldridge, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ. (Hirt, J., absent)

*H. A.*Stewart, for appellants.

*68*P. K.*Jones, with him *A. A. Fishkin,*for appellee.

July 16, 1943:

Per Curiam,

On March 31, 1938, appellee was awarded workmen’s compensation for total disability for the period from September 18, 1937 to November 8, 1937. The compensation was paid on April 30, 1938.1

On January 14, 1939, appellee filed a petition for reinstatement on the ground his disability had recurred. The testimony offered in support of this petition indicated that his disability had not ended on November 8, 1937; that the injury to his left knee had left a torn movable cartilage and some residual disability; and that, although he was able to work until December 28, 1938, on that date the irritation caused by the displaced cartilage totally disabled him.

On the basis of this evidence, the board made an award of compensation for total disability commencing December 28, 1938. The court of common pleas affirmed; the employer appeals.

There is ample evidence to support the finding that total disability recurred on December 28, 1938. The fact is, and the board so found, that the previous conclusion that all disability had terminated as of December 8, 1937 was erroneous. But, although the evidence indicated the conditions responsible for the disability — the torn cartilage — remained constant throughout, it does not follow, as appellant contends, that there was, therefore, no evidence of a *change or recurrence*sufficient to support the award. What the evidence indicates is that the disability changed from partial to total on December 28, 1938. Appellee might have filed a petition for rehearing under Section 426, Act of 1915, June 2, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 PS 871, *69and asked for compensation for pártiah disability from December 8, 1937 to December 28, 1938Nand for total disability thereafter. The fact that he did not is no ground for appellant to complain.

Appellant’s contention that the petition of January 14, 1939, was filed too late is without merit. It was filed within a year after the last payment of compensation which is the only limitation mentioned in the second paragraph of Section 413, 77 PS §772, under which the petition was filed. The dictum in *Downs v. Linton’s Lunch,*134 Pa. Superior Ct. 248, 253, 3 A. (2d) 971, that the recurrence, in order to be compensable, must have occurred within one year after the date as of which the original disability ceased, has no support either in the Act itself or in any of our decisions.2 It is, therefore, disapproved.

Judgment is affirmed.

1

 The board found that the receipt was dated April 19, 1938 but that the draft was paid April 30, 1938. See *Uglaky v. Hudson Coal Co.,*152 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 31 A. (2d) 743.

2

 Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 334 Pa. 415, 6 A. (2d) 515, on the opinion of Judge Cunningham, but the statement in question was not necessary to the decision.