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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. NATHAN THOMAS TRUJILLO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 30155
D.C. No. 1:18

- cr - 00117

- SPW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020 * *
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Nathan Thomas Trujillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 2 48

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; posse ssion with intent to distribute methamphetamine and

* 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. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 30155

aiding and abetting , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)(A)(i) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm. Trujillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
fail s to account for the mitigating factors of his case and his policy arguments that
the methamphetamine Guidelines are empirically unsound

. The district court did
not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
within

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality o f the circumstances, including the
seriousness of the offense , Trujillo’s criminal history, and the need to protect the public

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also United States v. Gutierrez

- Sanchez , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be giv en the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”)

. Moreover, contrary to Trujillo’s contentions, the record reflects that the district court considered Trujillo’s arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence , including its
determination that a departure from the Guidelines on policy grounds pursuant to Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) , was unwarranted

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5525 

To suspend temporarily the duty on forged steel crankshafts other than 

for vehicles of chapter 87, each measuring 1868 millimeters or more 

in length. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on forged steel crankshafts 

other than for vehicles of chapter 87, each measuring 

1868 millimeters or more in length. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FORGED STEEL CRANKSHAFTS OTHER THAN 

4 FOR VEHICLES OF CHAPTER 87, EACH MEAS5 URING 1868 MILLIMETERS OR MORE IN 

6 LENGTH. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5525 IH

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Forged steel crankshafts 

other than for vehicles of 

chapter 87, each measuring 1868 mm or more in 

length and weighing 453 

kg or more, with a stroke 

radius of 95 mm or more 

(provided for in subheading 8483.10.30) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order entered July 21, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00478-CV

SHERRY BEARD, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MCGREGOR BANCSHARES, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-04466

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ July 20, 2021 motion for an extension of time 

to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to 

August 27, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

ADOPTION OF THE REGULATION TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

Public Hearing Date: December 11, 2008 

Agenda Item No.: 08-11-4 

Addendum Prepared: December 8, 2009 

I. Background 

On October 23, 2009, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) submitted the 

Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) and the Final Regulation Order for the 

regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles 

(regulation) to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for its review and 

approval. In the course of its review, OAL identified several places in the Final 

Regulation Order where changes of a technical or grammatical nature would 

improve consistency or readability of the text. This Addendum is being submitted 

to OAL to describe and provide reasons for these changes by ARB to the Final 

Regulation Order. 

II. Additional Non-Substantial Changes 

ARB identified and made additional modifications to improve consistency and 

grammar of the regulation, as described below. ARB has determined that the 

changes described are all non-substantial in that none of them materially alter 

the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions or prescriptions contained in 

the Final Regulation Order filed with OAL. 

Section 95302. Definitions. 

ARB deleted the date from the definition of "delayed compliance trailer" at 

subsection (a)(12). The change improves clarity of the regulation by 

eliminating a one-day inconsistency between the delayed compliance date 

in the definition and the date set forth in subsection 95307(b)(4), which is 

cross-referenced by the definition.

 

In the definition of "DOORS" at subsection (a)(15), ARB changed 

references to two other regulations from upper case to lower case type. 
2

Section 95307. Optional Trailer Fleet Compliance Schedules. 

Subsection (e), Calculation Methodology. 

To eliminate potential confusion caused by the subsection’s use of NB to 

indicate both large fleet and small fleet compliance plan base numbers, 

ARB assigned different notations for the base numbers for large fleets in 

subsection (e)(1) and small fleets in (e)(2). Large fleet base numbers are 

now designated as NLB and small fleet base numbers are designated as 

NSB. In addition, the description in subsection (e)(5) of the value NB to be 

used in Equation 6 was modified to reflect the revised notations in the 

preceding definitions. 

In (e)(2), a reference to “refrigerated trailers” was changed to “refrigeratedvan trailers” for consistency. 

In (e)(3), “Delayed compliance trailer number” was changed to “Number of 

delayed compliance trailers” to be consistent with other language in the 

subsection. 

Also in (e)(3), “if applicable” was added to the provision relating to the 

number of early compliance trailers to acknowledge that not all fleets will 

have early compliance trailers, and to make this provision consistent with 

a parallel provision in subsection (e)(1).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00495-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss9 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

9 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00495-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26) be extended to November 6, 

2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00495-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

EUGENA L. PHELAN, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-20-CV-641-FB

§

TOWN OF HOLLYWOOD PARK, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND FINAL JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed on April 7, 2022

(docket #15). Plaintiff and Defendant have advised the Court that all matters in controversy

between them have been fully and finally resolved, and Plaintiff moves the Court to dismiss her

claims against the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause with prejudice to re-filing in

any form with costs taxed against the party incurring same. The Court finds the Agreed Motion to

Dismiss has merit, and this case should be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed in this case

(docket #15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s claims

against the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause be, and hereby are DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE to re-filing in any form, with costs taxed against the party incurring same. All

other requested relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED. Motions pending, if any, are also

DISMISSED, and this case is now CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2022.

 _________________________________________________

FRED BIERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00641-FB Document 16 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

p0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142733 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142733 

 COA: 295366 

St Clair CC: 08-001985-FH 

GARY LAVERNE KAUFMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44137

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SARA M. KUIPER-BOLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 786

Filed: November 22, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Davis F. Vandervelde, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Sara M. Kuiper-Boles pled guilty to injury to a child. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The 

district court sentenced Kuiper-Boles to a unified term of ten years with four years determinate. 

Kuiper-Boles filed an untimely Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Kuiper-Boles appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying her 

Rule 35 motion.

An I.C.R. 35 motion must be filed within 120 days of the entry of the judgment. 

I.C.R. 35(b). The 120-day filing limit is jurisdictional and deprives the district court of authority 

to entertain an untimely motion. State v. Fox, 122 Idaho 550, 552, 835 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Ct. 
2

App. 1992). Kuiper-Boles’ Rule 35 motion was not timely filed. Therefore, the district court’s 

order denying Kuiper-Boles’ Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5682 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5682

       To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-
                        tris (2-propenyloxyl)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-
                        tris (2-propenyloxyl)-.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3,5-TRIAZINE, 2,4,6- TRIS (2-PROPENYLOXYL)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        1,3,5-Triazine,     Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          2,4,6- tris (2-                                                   12/31/2015
                          propenyloxyl)-
                          (CAS No. 101-37-
                          1) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2933.69.60)......

    (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.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC.,

EMC CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00477-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM on Thursday August 04, 2022 at 10:00 AM before the

Honorable Derek T. Gilliland. The Zoom link can be accessed by counsel at the following link:

https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1610427634?pwd=V2RpaERVTkdySGI4b2F6cTZGSWRiZz09. 

SIGNED this 26th day of July, 2022.

______________________________

DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 223 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00473-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer 

of Venue to the Austin Division, does hereby ORDER that the above-captioned action be 

TRANSFERRED to the Austin Division but remain on the docket of United States District Judge 

Alan D Albright. 

SIGNED this ________ day of ____________________, 2020

 HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 42-23 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

# 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 Navstar Media
Holding, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jeffrey B. Spear, 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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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/ Jeffrey B. Spear
Jeffrey B. Spear
Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date: July 10, 2006

---
#### Ex parte SANDERSON.

No. 24400.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1949.

*463No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Relator presented his second application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Honorable Henry King, Judge of Criminal District Court No. 2 in and for Dallas County, Texas, on the 10th day of March 1949. Said Judge granted the application, set the hearing thereon for the 21st day of March, 1949, issued a bench warrant and had relator brought before him, heard the evidence relative to the allegations in the application for the writ, and directed that a transcript with a statement of the facts be forthwith forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a final disposition of the case. He further ordered that relator be remanded to custody to await the disposition of the, matter by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In the year 1948, relator presented his first application for a writ of habeas corpus to the same judge who transferred it to the Judge of the 12th Judicial District of Texas at Huntsville. The judge of said court heard the evidence relative to the issues joined and caused the entire record to be transferred to this court for final disposition. This court, after reviewing the facts together with the legal propositions advanced by him, denied the writ. He claims, however, that in his first application he overlooked the fact that he was tried in the federal court and convicted from which judgment of conviction he appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals; that while this case was pending on appeal he was confined in the Dallas County jail; that after his conviction in the federal court, the governor of this state revoked his conditional pardon theretofore granted him; that thereafter, in 1945, his conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. His contention now, on this hearing, is that during the time he was confined in the Dallas County jail under a judgment of conviction in the federal court and during which time his conditional pardon had been revoked he was serving time on his former convictions in the courts of this state.

The record before us shows that during the time his conditional pardon was revoked and while he was confined in the Dallas County jail under a judgment of conviction in the federal court, he was being fed and cared for at the expense of the Federal Government and therefore he was a federal prisoner. Consequently, he was not entitled to any credit on his former convictions in the state courts.

We see no need for any further discussion of the question here presented since the former opinion rendered by this court finally determined and adjudicated his status. See 212 S.W.2d 639, where former opinion is reported. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus is denied.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT  99.2  -  Annual  Independent  Accountants  Servicing  Report

Report  of  Independent  Accountants

To  the  Board  of  Directors
of  Vanderbilt  Mortgage  and  Finance,  Inc.

We  have  examined management's assertion about Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance,
Inc.'s  (the  "Company")  compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing  standards
identified  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's Uniform Single
Attestation  Program  for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended
June 30, 2002 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I).
Management  is  responsible  for  the  Company's  compliance  with those minimum
servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is  to  express  an  opinion  on
management's  assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the  American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants  and,  accordingly,
included  examining,  on  a  test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with  the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered  necessary  in  the  circumstances.  We  believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on  the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  the  Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended June 30,
2002  is  fairly  stated,  in  all  material  respects.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP
August  9,  2002