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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

TEODORO RIVERA-GUEVARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50510

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01690-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Teodoro Rivera-Guevara appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Rivera-Guevara contends that the district court erred by denying his request

for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We review the court’s

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant

was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d

1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court properly compared RiveraGuevara’s culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir.

2000). Moreover, the district court properly considered Rivera-Guevara’s

arguments and the factors listed in the Guidelines’ revised commentary in finding

that Rivera-Guevara’s role in the offense was not minor, based on the totality of

the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). That finding was not clearly

erroneous in light of Rivera-Guevara’s importing a substantial quantity of

methamphetamine into this country using his own vehicle, and his work as a drug

courier on two previous occasions. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641

F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2011). 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50510
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

§

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., §

§

Defendant. § 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.

c/o The Prentice Hall Corporation, Registered Agent

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620

Austin, TX 78701-3218 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose 

names and addresses are: 

Daniel B. Ross

Texas State Bar No. 00789810

dan@rosslawgroup.com

Trenton Lacy

Texas State Bar No. 24106176

trenton@rosslawgroup.com

1104 San Antonio Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 474-7677 Telephone

(512) 474-5306 Facsimile

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

 CLERK OF COURT 

Date:

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 3 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 2
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place 

of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and d\iscretion who resides there, 

on ( date ) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or 

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is 

. 

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ . 

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: 

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address Additional 

information regarding attempted service, etc: 

.

; or

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 3 Filed 06/21/20 Page 2 of 2
|  | (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                    Company. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                                                                         |                              |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Dated:                April 8, 2008 |                                                                                                                                              | /s/ John                King |
|                                | John                King                                                                                                                     |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer andChief                Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |

----
---

Exhibit 4.140

|                     |                               | 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|[exhibit4140001.jpg] | Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. 
|                     |                              
|Suite 900            | Tel: 604-688-1553            
|409 Granville St.    | Fax: 604-688-5926            
|Vancouver, B.C       | Toll: 866-688-0808           
|Canada VC6 1T2       | Web: www.nevadageothermal.com









AMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT STUDLEY,EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST1, 2007

THISAMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT(Agreement) is made andentered into effective as of August 1, 2008 (the Effective Date), by and between Nevada Geothermal Power Company, a Nevada corporation (the Company) and Andrew Studley (Employee), with reference to the following: THE ABOVE REFERENCED

AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Clause 4.1(c) is amended as follows: For a period of up to twenty-our (24) months from August 1, 2007, the Company will pay $1,250.00 towards the cost of interim Vancouver rental accommodation and one half (1/2) the cost of travel between Toronto and Vancouver up to a maximum of $500 per month.

2. Clause 4.1(d) is amended by extending the period of time for reimbursement of moving expenses to July 31, 2009.





THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

---

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  STUDLEYPage 2

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

| |                                      | 
| | ------------------------------------ | 
| | NEVADA GEOTHERMAL POWER CO.          | 
| |                                      | 
| | Per:Signed                           | 
| | Authorized Signatory: Brian Fairbank | 
| | President & CEO                      | 

|                                   |   |                     | 
|---------------------------------- | - | ------------------- | 
|SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED by    | ) |                     | 
|ANDREW STUDLEY in the presence of: | ) |                     | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|Signed                             | ) |                     | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|Cynthia Woodward                   | ) | Signed              | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|900  409 Granville Street         | ) | Andrew Studley, CFO | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|Vancouver, British Columbia        | ) |                     | 
|                                   | ) |                     | 
|Executive Assistant                | ) |                     | 

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50589 Conference Calendar

EARL S. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-677

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Earl S. Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. He argues that substantial evidence did not support the Commissioner’s decision that he was not disabled. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. Williams v. Commissioner , No. A-95-CA-677 JN (W.D. Tex. July 9, 1996).AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7826

GLENN CALVIN LAWHORN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUFUS R. FLEMING, Warden; NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-691)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Appellant's notice of appeal specifically states that he is

appealing the September 27, 1996, order. However, to the extent

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's November 15, 1996,

order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on September 27, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on November 27, 1996.*

Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension

of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to

consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of Sequa Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin Weinstein, Chief Executive 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:



(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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Martin Weinstein

Martin Weinstein

Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





Dated:  May 4, 2007
IB 

Union Calendar No. 181 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2655 

[Report No. 113–255] 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 

attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2013 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mr. JORDAN, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. FARENTHOLD, and Mr. HOLDING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Additional sponsor: Mr. MARINO

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2655 RH

A BILL 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2655 RH

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 ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc5 tion Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 

7 (a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 

8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in10 serting ‘‘shall’’; 

11 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 

12 all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 

14 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 

15 and all that follows through the end of the para16 graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 

17 the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub18 ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 

19 shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par20 ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 

21 as a direct result of the violation, including reason22 able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 

23 impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 

24 striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 

25 directives of a nonmonetary nature, or, if warranted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

4 

•HR 2655 RH

1 for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 

2 of a penalty into the court.’’. 

3 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

4 or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to 

5 bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 

6 defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, 

7 including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of 

8 the United States. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Union Calendar No. 181 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2655 

[Report No. 113–255] 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

and for other purposes. Procedure to improve attorney accountability, 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30080 Summary Calendar

ADAM SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID BONNETTE, Assistant Warden, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 96-CV-7441-A-1

- - - - - - - - - - July 30, 1997 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Adam Smith, Louisiana inmate #70741, appeals the dismissal, without prejudice, of his civil rights complaint for failure to comply with the order requiring him to pay the $120 filing fee. Smith contends that he complied with the order and paid the filing fee. The docket sheet confirms that Smith paid the fee. However, the court had no knowledge of Smith’s compliance because the docket entry was not made until several weeks later. InNo. 97-30080 - 2 - light of Smith’s payment of the filing fee, it was an abuse ofNo. 97-30080 - 3 - discretion for the court to dismiss the complaint. JUDGMENT is hereby VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
VACATE AND REMAND.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 286 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

certain State foster care program payments made to the biological parents of disabled children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income certain State foster care program 

payments made to the biological parents of disabled children. 

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


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 286 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF CERTAIN 

2 STATE FOSTER CARE PROGRAM PAYMENTS 

3 MADE TO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF DIS4 ABLED CHILDREN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 131 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION TO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS

9 RECEIVING PAYMENTS THROUGH STATE FOSTER

10 CARE PROGRAMS.—A payment made pursuant to a 

11 foster care program of a State or political subdivi12 sion thereof shall not fail to be treated as a difficulty 

13 of care payment which is excludible from gross in14 come under subsection (a) solely because the quali15 fied foster individual with respect to which such pay16 ment is made is the biological child of the foster care 

17 provider.’’. 

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

19 this section shall apply to payments made in taxable years 

20 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
AURORA LOAN INC.
2530 S. Parker Road. Suite 601
Aurora, Colorado 80014

March 15, 2003

Karen Schluter CitiBank, NA
111 Wall Street, 14th Floor/Zone 3
New York, NY 10005

RE: SASCO Series 2002-13
Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Schluter:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending
on December 31, 2002:

1. I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master
Servicer during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the Trust
Agreements and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under the
Agreements;

2. Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge,
the Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the
terms of the Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if
there is a default in the fulfillment of its obligations, a description
of each default or failure and the nature and status thereof has been
reported to this Officer;

3. To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement
during the preceding calendar year;

4. To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement
in any material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment
of its obligations, a description of each default or failure and the
nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5. The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual
audit report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable
Servicing Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been
received by the Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best
reasonable efforts to obtain such certificate or report.

Certified By:
/s/ R. Peter Karr

---------------
Name: R. Peter Karr
Title: Senior Vice President
Department: Master Servicing Division
##### 



Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries:

|                                  |  |               |  |                    |       |                     |  | 
|--------------------------------- |  | ------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------------- |  | 
|                                  |  |               |  |                    |       | Voting rights owned
|                                  |  | Country of    |  | by us, directly or
|Name                              |  | Incorporation |  | indirectly        
|                                  |  |               |  |                   
|Nissin Servicer Co., Ltd.         |  | Japan         |  |                    | 100.0 | %                  
|Big Apple Co., Ltd.               |  | Japan         |  |                    | 100.0 |                    
|Nissin Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. |  | Japan         |  |                    | 100.0 |                    
|Nissin Insurance Co., Ltd.        |  | Japan         |  |                    | 100.0 |
#### GASTON v. STATE.

No. 23847.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing . for sale whiskey in a dry area, punishment assessed at a fine of $500. . .

To confer jurisdiction upon this court it is necessary that notice of appeal Tbe given, and entered upon the minutes of the trial court. Art. 827, C.C.P., and notes under said article in Vernon’s Tex.C.C.P. A docket entry of such notice is not a compliance with the statute.

We fail to find in the transcript before us any notice of appeal whatever. The absence of such required notice makes it necessary to dismiss the appeal, and it is so ordered.