alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 36,049

5 RONALD VAUGHN,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 

8 Mary Marlowe Sommer, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender

14 Santa Fe, NM 

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 HANISEE Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a

2 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the

3 conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration,

4 we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

5 {2} The pertinent background information and applicable principles were

6 previously set out in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid

7 unnecessary repetition here, focusing instead on the content of the memorandum in

8 opposition.

9 {3} Defendant continues to challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support

10 his conviction. [MIO 2-4] However, Defendant’s admission to having consumed

11 alcohol and OxyContin prior to driving, [MIO 1, 3] the evidence that Defendant

12 caused a traffic accident, [MIO 2] and the officers’ testimony that Defendant

13 displayed numerous indicia of intoxication, [MIO 1, 3] supply ample support for the

14 conviction. See, e.g., State v. Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24, 137 N.M. 597,

15 113 P.3d 867 (holding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction for DWI

16 where the defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, admitted to drinking

17 alcohol, failed field sobriety tests and was driving erratically); State v. Caudillo, 2003-

18 NMCA-042, ¶ 8, 133 N.M. 468, 64 P.3d 495 (stating that the evidence was sufficient
3

1 to establish impairment where the defendant was involved in an accident, smelled of

2 alcohol, admitted to having consumed beer, and refused to take a blood alcohol test).

3 {4} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant focuses on countervailing

4 inferences which might have been drawn. [MIO 3-4] “However, as a reviewing court,

5 we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw alternative inferences from the

6 evidence.” State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41, 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793. We

7 therefore remain unpersuaded.

8 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary

9 disposition and above, we affirm.

10 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 

12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 

16 

17 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0794n.06 Filed: September 16, 2005 No. 05-1284 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHRISTOPHER CHARLES WOOD, Defendant-Appellant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, MOORE and SUTTON, Circuit Judges
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is a single issue appeal concerning defendant’s sentence of 156 months after he pled guilty to armed bank robbery. At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s counsel requested a sentence below the applicable Guideline range for a “career offender” under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, § 4B1.1 (requiring that defendant have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense”). The parties agree that this provision is applicable and provides a sentencing guideline range of between 151 and 188 months, although after United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Guidelines are advisory only. The government argued for a sentence within the Guideline range in response to the defendant’s argument for a sentence below the Guideline range. The defendant asserts on appeal that the government’s argument was a material breach of the plea agreement between theNo. 05-1284 United States v. Wood

-2- parties because the plea agreement states that “the United States also agrees not to oppose any argument offered by the defendant that his senten ce should be the lowestpermissible under the applicable sentencing guideline range.” The pl ea agreement does not prohibit the government from arguing against a sentence below the “applicable guideline” range. The agreement does not prohibit the government, therefore, from arguing in opposition to the defendant’s argument for a sentence below the applicable guideline range. In view of the fact that the parties agreed with the pre-sentence report that the applicable Guideline range was between 151 and 188 months, and in view of the f act that the government complied with the agreement and did not oppose an argument for a sentence at the low end of the applicable sentencing guideline range, we conclude th at there is no basis for vacating or setting aside the sentence imposed by the District Court. The defendant did not explicitly argue for a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guideline range, but rather argued for a sentence below the applicable Guideline range. Hence, we find no violation of the plea agreement. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-K/A of Travis Boats & Motors,
Inc. (the  "Company")  for the year ended  September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark T.
Walton,  President of the Company,  certify,  to my best  knowledge  and belief,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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
(15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or 78o(d));  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/ Mark T. Walton
Mark T. Walton, President
January 14, 2004
Order entered April 12, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00766-CV

MICHAEL A. NASR, Appellant

V.

JOHN DAVID WHITEHEAD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03670

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 8, 2021 second motion for an extension 

of time to file his reply brief. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the reply 

brief tendered to this Court by appellant on April 8, 2021 filed as of the date of this 

order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
sien_Ex10_17


		
			Exhibit 10.17
		

		
			 
		

		
			Amendment No. 2 To Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
		

		
			This Amendment No. 2 (this  “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated September 12, 2016 (the “A&R Employment Agreement”), as amended by that certain Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2017  (together, with the A&R Employment Agreement, the “Agreement”), by and between Sientra, Inc. and Charles Huiner (the “Executive”) is executed as of March 10, 2017.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company wish to modify various provisions of the Agreement.
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the Company agree to the following:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Section 6.4 of the Agreement is hereby amended such that the following sentence shall be included following the last sentence of Section 6.4: 




		
			 
		

		
			“In addition, if an acquiror does not assume or continue Executive’s then unvested Company equity awards in connection with a Change in Control that also represents a Corporate Transaction (as defined in the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan), then all such awards shall accelerate in full and will be deemed vested and exercisable as of the closing of the Corporate Transaction.”
		

		
			 
		

		
			Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. In all other respects the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
		

		
			This Amendment constitutes the complete, final and exclusive embodiment of the entire agreement between Executive and the Company with regard to the provisions contained herein.  This Amendment may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by both Executive and a duly authorized officer of the Company.
		

		
			


		 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the later of the two dates set forth below.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Company

					
					
						 

					
					
						Executive

				
	
					
						By:   

					
					
						/s/ Jeffrey M. Nugent

					
					
						 

					
					
						/s/ Charles Hunier

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Jeffrey M. Nugent

					
					
						 

					
					
						Charles Huiner

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Printed Name

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

					
					
						 

					
					
						March 10, 2017

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title

					
					
						 

					
					
						Date

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						March 10, 2017

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Date
EXHIBIT 10.34

               American River Bankshares Director Emeritus Program


         Each Director upon full retirement from American River Bankshares (the
"Company") and affiliate Board(s) of Directors is entitled to participate in the
American River Bankshares Director Emeritus Program (the "Program"). The Program
allows for retiring directors to receive payments totaling that Director's
compensation for the previous two full calendar years to be paid in monthly
installments for the subsequent 24 months after retirement.

         The Program is designed to compensate those Director's that have served
at least 10 years at a higher level than those that have served for just a few
years. The intent is to recognize those that have gained a greater understanding
of the Company through their years of service and those that may be able to
provide a higher quality of consulting services to the Company after retirement.
To accomplish this, the Program would pay the Director Emeritus 10% of the above
referenced compensation for each year of service with the full amount being paid
to the Directors with ten years of previous service.

         Under the Program, the Director Emeritus will continue to support the
Company by making himself/herself available for consultation with management
and/or the Board, continuing to be a referral source for business to the Company
and attending Company functions such as annual meetings for a period of two
years after retirement. The payments will continue as long as the Director
Emeritus provides the above services. The Board will determine if the Director
Emeritus is still eligible for the Program based upon communications with the
Director Emeritus, feedback from Company management and the quality of the
services provided by the Director Emeritus. Provided that such Director Emeritus
has met the requirements of the Program, upon such Director Emeritus' death,
compensation shall continue to be paid to the estate of any Director Emeritus.
After the death of any Director Emeritus, any service obligations of such
Director Emeritus imposed by the Program shall not be binding upon the estate of
said Director Emeritus.

                                       38
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2008 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT
SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION ELECTION FORM
 December 19, 2008
 Name:
    
    
    SS #:
  o
    
    I hereby irrevocably elect date(s) for the distribution of 100% of the Shares associated
with the restricted stock units that I elected to receive pursuant to my 2008 Compensation Election
Form that are not otherwise payable in 2008; provided that, this election shall not cause any
amounts to be paid in 2008 that would not otherwise be payable in 2008.  This election shall be in
accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in this form in the manner and amount set forth
below (to the extent permitted under the Policy and under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code).
(If you check this box, please complete all sections of this form, sign, date, and return the form
as indicated above).
  Settlement Date
  
    
    You must select the date as of which you will receive the Shares associated with the
restricted stock units for which you elected to choose a distribution date above (the Settlement
Date).
    
    You may elect up to three Settlement Dates as you wish related to the restricted stock units you
elected to receive pursuant to your 2008 Compensation Election Form.
    
    If you incur a separation from service from Ingram Micro Inc. (within the meaning of Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code) (a Separation from Service) prior to any of the Settlement Dates you elect below, any
remaining unpaid Shares will be distributed within sixty (60) days following such Separation from Service.
  A.          %Month                      Day                      YearB.          %Month                      Day                      YearC.          %Month                      Day                      Year
 All
 [FORM CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE]




---



#####
Exhibit 99.1


             Annual Statement of Industry Mortgage Company L.P.



IMC MORTGAGE COMPANY
3450 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 250
Tampa, FL 33618
(813) 932-2211


                                March 25, 1997



Asset-Backed Securities Trust Services Group
LaSalle National Bank
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 200
Chicago, Illinois  60603


                     Nomura Asset Securities Corporation
                  Home Equity Loan Pass-Through Certificates
                                Series 1995-2


                            OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Pooling and
Servicing Agreement governing the referenced Trust, it is hereby
certified that (i) the undersigned has completed a review of the
Servicer's performance of its obligations under the PSA for the
current calendar year, (ii) to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge on the basis of that review the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the PSA throughout such period,
(iii) to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, the
sub-servicer, if any, has fulfilled its obligations under its
sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and (iv) no notice
has been received from any governmental agency or body which
would indicate a challenge or question as to the status of the
Trust's qualification as a REMIC under the Code.



                              Signed:       /s/ Jeff Ault

                              By:  Jeff Ault, Secretary

                              For:  IMC Mortgage Company
10

1_RCP_Ref

GCAM RCP Reference Scenario (the no climate policy scenario associated with the RCP4.5)

Year Foss CO2 Defo CO2 CH4 N2O NOx VOCs CO SO2,1 SO2,2 SO2,3 CF4 C2F6 HFC125 HFC134a HFC143a HFC227ea HFC245ca SF6

Year (Pg C) (Pg C) (Tg) (Tg N) (Mt N) (Mt) (Mt) (Tg S) (Tg S) (Tg S) (kton) (kton) (kton) (kton) (kton) (kton) (kton) (kton)

1990 6.055 1.599 273.903 6.955 37.8 206.246 1040.263 0 0 0 18.929 1.028 0.001 0 0 0 0 6.327

2000 7.259 1.265 292.239 7.497 38.449 215.385 1075.392 -7.063 5.988 2.197 17.31 1.888 5.167 158.773 0 0 12.076 6.228

2005 7.861 1.097 301.407 7.767 38.774 219.954 1092.956 -10.595 8.983 3.295 16.5 2.317 7.75 238.159 0 0 18.114 6.179

2020 10.368 0.706 359.462 9.092 37.985 226.176 1168.149 -17.55 11.922 3.942 13.011 1.464 17.705 428.249 0 0 67.225 5.274

2035 13.277 0.667 404.647 10.149 38.248 252.481 1228.739 -20.784 4.751 4.569 14.793 1.781 22.512 561.325 0 0 73.986 6.827

2050 15.747 0.682 434.962 10.692 33.993 237.614 1103.437 -23.347 -3.478 3.704 16.251 2.084 27.532 698.516 0 0 77.834 8.103

2065 17.765 0.629 447.064 11.005 29.963 224.33 959.171 -23.982 -7.669 3.875 17.847 2.365 33.962 873.606 0 0 80.517 8.943

2080 19.849 0.335 443.502 10.938 26.247 188.46 704.275 -24.379 -10.171 2.555 19.463 2.551 42.184 1098.506 0 0 83.552 9.716

2095 21.392 0.29 446.853 10.823 24.817 173.182 593.608 -24.544 -10.737 0.602 20.983 2.693 50.563 1311.98 0 0 85.08 10.24

2100 21.392 0.29 446.853 10.823 24.817 173.182 593.608 -24.544 -10.737 0.602 20.983 2.693 50.563 1311.98 0 0 85.08 10.24

X12345123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890

Produced by write_magicc_file.R from ../R/EPA_Baseline.csv. JGCRI/PNNL, Thu Jun 21 22:05:38 2012
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲
▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 99.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that:



| | (i) |  | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







|Dated:  June 25, 2003 |  | /S/    JOHN M. PALUMBO 
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | John M. Palumbo        
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1
 
 Contact:
 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS COMPLETES SALE OF
CERTAIN EUROPEAN OPERATIONS TO MEDA AB
   About Valeant
 www.valeant.com.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1215-12

EX PARTE ALFREDO OLVERA, Appellant

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant pleaded guilty to assault of a public servant. The trial court deferred an

adjudication of guilt and placed Appellant on supervision for five years. He was later denied

reentry into the United States.

Appellant filed a writ application pursuant to Art. 11.072 alleging that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The trial

court denied relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that counsel was
OLVERA - 2

ineffective under Padilla. Ex parte Olvera, No. 05-11-01349-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS

4896 (Tex. App. – Dallas June 20, 2012) (not designated for publication).

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. The U.S.

Supreme Court recently held that, under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), Padilla does

not have retroactive effect. Chaidez v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013).

Today, we adopted that Court’s reasoning as a matter of state law in Ex parte De Los Reyes,

No. PD-1457-11, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. Crim. App. March 20, 2013).

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in De

Los Reyes. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of

De Los Reyes.

DATE DELIVERED: March 20, 2013

DO NOT PUBLISH
II

Calendar No. 6

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 27

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local educational

agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally-protected

prayer in schools.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

JANUARY 5, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State

or local educational agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally-protected prayer in schools.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Voluntary School Pray5 er Protection Act’’.
2

S 27 PCS

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CON2 STITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED SCHOOL PRAY3 ER.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, no funds made available through the Depart6 ment of Education shall be provided to any State or local

7 educational agency that has a policy of denying, or that

8 effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally-pro9 tected prayer in public schools by individuals on a vol10 untary basis.

11 (b) LIMITATION.—No person shall be required to par12 ticipate in prayer or influence the form or content of any

13 constitutionally-protected prayer in public schools.

Calendar No. 6

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 27

A BILL

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any

tected prayer in schools.prevents participation in constitutionally-proState or local educational agency that denies or

JANUARY 5, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar