alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4621

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARFIELD ANTHONY ANDERSON, a/k/a James

McDonald,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-02-70)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and

Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank

D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine

Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Garfield Anthony Anderson pled guilty, without a plea

agreement, to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326 (a), (b)(2) (2000). Anderson was sentenced to

ninety-six months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of

supervised release. The district court also specified an identical

alternative sentence of ninety-six months followed by three years

supervised release, pursuant to this court’s recommendation in

United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order),

opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc),

cert. granted and judgment vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005).

Anderson appealed, challenging the constitutionality of

the federal sentencing scheme in light of the Supreme Court’s

decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The

case was held in abeyance pending decision in United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). That opinion has now issued and

applies the Court’s reasoning in Blakely to the federal sentencing

guidelines. 

We conclude that because the alternative sentence the

district court pronounced in case the federal sentencing guidelines

were invalidated was identical to the mandatory sentence imposed

under the federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at that

time, any error resulting from the sentence imposed by the district

court was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm Anderson’s sentence.
- 3 -

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.4(B)



 Exhibit 10.4(b) 

June 1, 2016 
 Willowbridge Associates Inc. 

101 Morgan Lane - Suite 180 
 Plainsboro, N.J. 08536 

Attention: Mr. Steve R. Crane 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Crane: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2017 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


	 	•	 	CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P. 


	 	•	 	Emerging CTA Portfolio LP 


	 	•	 	Orion Futures Fund L.P. 


	 	•	 	Managed Futures Premier Macro L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by
signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or fax to
866-428-9026. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808 or contact Jack Yuen at 212-296-1320. 

Very truly yours, 
  

	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
	
	 By: /s/ Patrick T. Egan

	Patrick T. Egan
	President and Director
	
	WILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.
	
	By: /s/ Steven R. Crane            
	
	Print Name: Steven R. Crane    
	
	PE/kg
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |
| /s/      Donald R. Uzzi                                           |   |   |   |   |
| Donald      R. Uzzi                                               |   |   |   |   |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |   |   |   |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |
| /s/      Jon H. Peterson                                          |   |   |   |   |
| Jon H. Peterson                                                   |   |   |   |   |
|  Chief Financial      Officer                                |   |   |   |   |
### Order issued JulyfP, 1996

In The 

### Qlffurt at Appals 

### Ttftly Ststrtrt of Qkxas ai lallas No. 05-92-00176-CR JAMES EDWARD SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ORDER O I2-



### On November 28, 1994, appellant's retained counsel filed amotion to withdraw as 

### counsel and an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and without merit. See 

## Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedural safeguards ofAnders and its 

## progeny apply to counsel appointed to represent an indigent appellant. They do not apply to retained attorneys. SeeJefferyv. State, 903 S.W.2d776, 779 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no 

## pet.). Accordingly, we STRIKEthe November28, 1994motiontowithdraw andbrieffiled on appellant's behalf. Further, we STRIKE the State's response filed on December 28, 1994. 

## Appellant's retainedcounsel, Ross Teter, is ORDERED to file withinten days ofthedate of this order either (i) a motion to withdraw the notice of appeal signed by counsel and appellant as required by rule 59(b) of the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure, (ii) a motion to withdraw as counsel that complies with rule 7 of the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure, or (iii) a brief raising meritorious grounds of error. If Ross Teter fails to file either a motion to withdraw the appeal, a motion to withdraw as counsel, or a brief raising meritorious grounds within the time allowed, this Court may order him to appear to show cause why he should not be held in contempt ofcourt for failing to obey this order. Ross Teter shall file the motion to withdraw the appeal, the motion to withdraw as counsel, or the brief raising meritorious grounds with the Clerk ofthe Court ofAppeals, Fifth District ofTexas, George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building, 600 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75202-4658. We ORDER the Clerk ofthis Court to send Ross Teter a copy ofthis orderby both 

### registered mail, restricted delivery to addressee only, return-receiptrequested, and by firstclass mail.
FRANCES MALONEY JUSTICE

-2-
January 17 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROGER MILLICAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00271

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellan t to withdraw notice of appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certi fied below for observance.
#### Mark Henry MASON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 26, 1965.

Stuart L. Lyon, David Kaplan, Louisville, for appellant.

*798Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Lloyd R. Cress, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for ap-pellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment. (KRS 433.140). On this appeal he contends that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury whether a pocket knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of the above statute which reads as follows:

> “Any person who commits robbery or burglary or any act penalized by KRS 433.130, and in committing the act uses or displays any pistol, gun or other firearm or deadly weapon shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for life, or by death.”

Since the only weapon displayed in the commission of the crime was a pocket knife having a three inch blade, the question narrows to whether the trial court correctly determined that this knife was a deadly weapon per se.

Appellant frankly concedes that we have previously decided the identical question adversely to his contention in Montgomery v. Commonwealth, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 479. However, he requests us to overrule this case and to permit a jury to determine, under a proper instruction, whether the knife was used as a deadly weapon.

After a careful reconsideration of this question we have no doubt as to the soundness of our previous conclusions, such as stated in Williams v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 359, 200 S.W.2d 926, to the effect that a knife is ordinarily a deadly weapon since it may produce death even though the stab or thrust does not reach a vital organ of the human body. Where, as here, the weapon used in the commission of the offense is of such size and character as to permit but one reasonable conclusion, i. e., that it is a deadly weapon, the court need not let the jury debate its deadly character. Hence, we adhere to the conclusion reached in Montgomery v. Commonwealth, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES LINLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC.; 

CHASE BANK USA, N.A., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56200 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00005-WQHKSC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

James Linlor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in 

his action alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gorman v. Wolpoff 

& Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009). 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

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56200 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Linlor failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact to whether defendants’ investigation of 

Linlor’s dispute was unreasonable. See id. at 1154 (setting forth responsibilities of 

furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Linlor’s request for 

additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because Linlor

did not show how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. 

See Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-1101 (9th Cir. 

2006) (setting forth the standard of review and upholding the denial of request for 

a continuance where plaintiff “did not identify the specific facts that further 

discovery would have revealed or explain why those facts would have precluded 

summary judgment”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Linlor’s requests for 

sanctions because Linlor did not show that defendants failed to comply with their 

discovery or Rule 11(b) obligations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (providing that if

a party fails to provide information required by Rules 26(a) or (e), the party is not 

allowed to use that information on a motion or at trial unless the failure was 

substantially justified or harmless); Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and criteria for the imposition of Rule 11 

sanctions); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th 
3 18-56200 

Cir. 2001) (“[A]lthough we review every discovery sanction for an abuse of 

discretion, we give particularly wide latitude to the district court's discretion to 

issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 510

AN ACT

To extend the authorization for certain programs under the

Native American Programs Act of 1974, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 510 ES

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN APPROPRIA2 TIONS UNDER THE NATIVE AMERICAN PRO3 GRAMS ACT OF 1974.

4 (a) SECTION 816.—Section 816 of the Native Amer5 ican Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘for fiscal

8 years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and

10 1999.’’;

11 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘for each of

12 the fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996,’’

13 and inserting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997,

14 1998, and 1999,’’; and

15 (3) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘$2,000,000

16 for fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be nec17 essary for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.’’

18 and inserting ‘‘such sums as may be necessary for

19 each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.’’.

20 (b) SECTION 803A(f)(1).—Section 803A(f)(1) of

21 such Act (42 U.S.C. 2991b–1(f)(1)) is amended by strik22 ing ‘‘for each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994,
3

S 510 ES

1 $1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘such sums as may be nec2 essary for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1999,’’.

Passed the Senate May 11 (legislative day, May 1),

1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 510

AN ACT

To extend the authorization for certain programs

1974, and for other purposes.under the Native American Programs Act of
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 28.2

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                  (Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Pooling and
                     Servicing Agreement referred to below)

                               MELLON BANK, N.A.

                   MELLON BANK HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1996-1

                  The undersigned, a Vice President of Mellon Bank, N.A., as
Servicer ("Mellon Bank N.A."), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of March 1, 1996 (as may be amended and supplemented from time to
time, the "Agreement"), among Mellon Bank, N.A., as Transferor and Servicer,
and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, does hereby certify that:

     1.   Mellon Bank, N.A. is, as of the date hereof, Servicer under the
          Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their
          respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

     2.   The undersigned is an officer of Mellon Bank who is duly authorized
          to execute and deliver this Certificate to Trustee.

     3.   A review of the activities of Servicer during the fiscal year ended
          December 31, 1996, and of its performance under the Agreement was
          conducted under my supervision.

     4.   Based on such review, Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
          fulfilled all its material obligations under the Agreement throughout
          such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has
          occurred or is continuing.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 27th day of March , 1997.


                                             MELLON BANK, N.A.,
                                               Servicer

                                             By:  PATRICK RYAN
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Name:  Patrick Ryan
                                                  Title: Vice President
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1









                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP


The Board of Directors
Alterra Healthcare Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-37737 and 333-45433) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32907 and
333-38595) of Alterra Healthcare Corporation of our report dated March 23, 2001
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Alterra Healthcare Corporation
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in
the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Alterra Healthcare
Corporation.

Our report dated March 23, 2001 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and was in
violation of certain debt covenants and cross covenants as of December 31, 2000.
As a results of the covenant violations and cross covenant violations, the
Company is in default of the related debt. Additionally, the Company did not
make certain scheduled loan principal and lease payments due in March of 2001.
These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.



Chicago, IL
March 29, 2001
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

REMEDYTEMP, INC.

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            YEAR             YEAR
                                                            ENDED            ENDED
                                                        SEPTEMBER 28,    SEPTEMBER 29,
                                                            1997             1996
                                                            ----             ----

<S>                                                        <C>              <C>   
Net income(1) ...................................          $10,193          $7,084
                                                           =======          ======
  Average shares outstanding ....................            8,896           7,260
  Common equivalent shares ......................              146              25
  Assumed shares sold to prepay shareholder
    distribution (2) ............................                -             692
                                                           -------          ------
  Weighted average number of common shares ......            9,042           7,977
                                                           =======          ======
  Earnings per common and common 
    equivalent share.............................          $  1.13          $  .89
                                                           =======          ======
</TABLE>

(1)     The computation set forth herein for the fiscal year ended September 29,
        1996 is based on pro forma net income which reflects the recording by
        the Company of additional taxes as if the Company were treated as a C
        corporation for all periods presented.

(2)     Reflects the estimated number of shares required to be sold by the
        Company (as calculated based upon the net proceeds of the Offering) to
        pay the pre-Offering shareholder distributions of $9,952. The total
        estimated shares of 890 are weighted for the portion of fiscal 1996
        prior to the Company's Offering. Subsequent to the Offering, the shares
        were actually outstanding and are therefore included in the "average
        shares outstanding" amount above. See Note 1 to the Consolidated
        Financial Statements, incorporated by reference from the Company's
        Annual Report to Shareholders (see Item 8 of this report.) 


                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
 INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                                  STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           724904
<NAME>                          ARIZONA INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                            597,931
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,082,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                      165,000
<INVENTORY>                                     2,049,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,161,730
<PP&E>                                          2,912,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,402,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,024,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,211,634
<BONDS>                                           380,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           66,777
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,364,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,024,164
<SALES>                                        12,639,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,639,943
<CGS>                                           5,556,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,690,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                224,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,255,938
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (488,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,743,938
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,743,938
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .25


</TABLE>