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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 248-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; possession 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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

fails 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 of 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 given 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.
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-127957 and333-122668) and Form S-8 (No. 333-117251) of K-SeaTransportation Partners L.P. of our report dated September 12, 2005relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New YorkSeptember 12, 2005

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The financial data schedule contains summary  informaiton  extracted from Part I
of Form 10KSB for the year ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001051902
<NAME>                        JVWeb, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        45724
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 50333
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              170894
<PP&E>                        4390
<DEPRECIATION>                1700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                273584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         250899
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      93276
<OTHER-SE>                    (70591)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  273584
<SALES>                       220825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              220825
<CGS>                         53286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 53286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1296617
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            8129
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1137207)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1137207)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1137207)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.14)




</TABLE>
exv10w20



 






EXHIBIT 10.20




MakeMusic, Inc. Board Compensation Plan



Effective January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006




	 	 	 
	Eligibility:

	 	All members of the board of directors of MakeMusic, Inc. who are not (i) employees of MakeMusic,
Inc., (ii) otherwise being compensated by MakeMusic, Inc. or (iii) representatives of 5% or greater
shareholders.
	 
	 	 
	Cash Fee:

	 	Each eligible director shall be paid a cash fee of $3,000 per calendar quarter for board membership.
In addition, director serving as a chairperson of one or more committees of the board of directors
shall be paid an additional $2,000 per calendar quarter.
	 
	 	 
	Equity:

	 	Stock option grant for each eligible director as follows:







	 	§	 	non-qualified stock option to purchase 4,000 shares of common stock
	 
	 	§	 	issued under the 2003 Equity Incentive Plan
	 
	 	§	 	grant date shall be the date of board approval of this compensation plan
	 
	 	§	 	exercise price shall be the fair market value of common stock as of date
of grant
	 
	 	§	 	7-year term
	 
	 	§	 	vesting schedule:






	 	•	 	333 shares on the last day of each month beginning January 31,
2006 and ending November 30, 2006
	 
	 	•	 	337 shares on December 31, 2006






	 	§	 	in the event the director’s service as a director terminates for any
reason or the director is no longer an eligible director, as defined by
this plan, vesting shall immediately terminate but the director shall be
entitled to exercise the option for any vested shares through the remaining
term of the option
#### BOONE et al. v. SMITH, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 15, 1954.

Wilbur Fields, Louisville, for petitioners. Herman Frick, Louisville, for City of Louisville.

A. T. Lee, Louisville, for Highbaugh Realty Co.

F. H. Thiemann, Jr., Louisville, for Otto Effinger and Ella Effinger.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This is an original action for an order of mandamus. Petitioners are asking this Court to order the Honorable Macauley T. Smith, Judge of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Chancery Branch, First Division, to enter an order filing the first amended petition in action No. 339,940, Jefferson Circuit Court, or to enter an order filing the second amended petition in that action, or, as an alternative, to set aside the order sustaining the general demurrer to the original petition in the same action.

Petitioners are a group constituting more than two-thirds of the voting residents of a subdivision known as Meadowview Estates, *929located in the unincorporated area of Jefferson County. They petitioned the Jefferson^ Circuit Court for the incorporation of a city-of the sixth class, to be known as Meadow-view Estates, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 81 qf KRS. ...

Judge Smith, the respondent herein, sustained a demurrer to the petition o'n the ground-that'the plat of the proposed city showed that its form was not square as the language of KRS 81.040 -requires.

Petitioners then attempted to file an amended petition in which the form of the proposed city was reduced to -a square. Judge Smith sustained objections to the filing of the amended petition on the ground that it was not signed by two-thirds of the voters as required by KRS 81.050.

Petitioners tendered a- second amended petition which complied with the prior rulings of the court. However, the Chancel-, lor sustained objections to its being filed on the. ground that it should not be considered until the determination of the outcome of two -remonstrance suits which had been filed protesting the proposed annexation, of'the same area by the city of Louisville.

KRS 81.040 contains the requirement that:

> “ * * * The boundary of any city, when incorporated, shall not exceed one-half mile in each direction, the form of the city being square, *' *

Clearly, the Chancellor was cotrect in sustaining a demurrer to the petition on the ground that the proposed boundary did not comply with the statutory requirements.'

Chapter 81 of KRS contains fio mandatory provision requiring the judge to order the filing of an amended petition for incorporation in the event an original' petition is not properly drawn. We think that such an act on the part of the judge is within his judicial discretion. Also see, Rule. 15.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.

While mandamus will lie to compel the trial of an issue or the hearing of-amo-' tion it cannot be-used to control how such shall be tried or to dictate what order'shall be entered in any case in which discretion may be exercised b'y a cóurt or a judge. Union Trust Co. v. Garnett, Judge, 254 Ky. 573, 72 S.W.2d 27; Smith v. Shamburger, 314 Ky. 850, 238 S.W.2d 844.

Wherefore the application of the petitioners is denied.
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 22106.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1942.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1942.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the possession of intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the *107purpose of sale. The punishment asseséed •is a fine of $100. ■ ■ :

The record is before us without' a statement of facts or bills of exception. , Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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 10.5


 


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


TO:  The Directors of Inception Growth Acquisition
Limited (the “Company”).


 


The undersigned hereby subscribes
for 2,587,500 shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue of the Shares, the
undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company.


 


We agree to take the Shares
subject to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws of the Company and we authorize you to enter the following name and address in
the stockholders ledger of the Company:


 


Name: Soul Venture Partners LLC


 


Address: 875 Washington Street, New
York, NY 10014


 


	Signed: 	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 








 


Dated: [    ], 2021


 


Accepted:


 


INCEPTION GROWTH ACQUISITION LIMITED


 


	Signed: 	 	 
	Name: 	Paige E. Craig	 
	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer	 








 


Dated: [    ], 2021
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00134-CV

CRLP Research Boulevard, LLC, Appellant

v.

Williamson County Appraisal District and Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 06-664-C368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, CRLP Research Boulevard, LLC, has filed an unopposed motion to

dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 12, 2008
#### BARBER v. STATE.

No. 23252.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1945.

*880Eugene F. Mathis, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The brief filed by the State’s Attorney before this Court reflects the views of the Court and is adopted as its opinion, viz.:

> “This is an appeal from the County Court of Lubbock County, Texas, from a conviction for failure to exhibit an operator’s license on demand, the punishment, a fine of $200.00.

> “The prosecution, however, originated in the Justice Court of Precinct No. 1, Place No. 2, in Lubbock County, wherein the defendant was charged by complaint, (eliminating the formal part thereof), ‘C. R. Barber did then and there unlawfully, while operating an automobile upon a street, within the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, fail to display an operator’s license upon demand to do so by a peace officer, against the peace and dignity of the State.’ This complaint was apparently brought under the provisions of Article 6687b, sec. 13 of the Civil Statutes of Texas, which reads as follows:

> “ ‘Sec. 13. License to be carried and exhibited on demand. Every licensee shall have his operator’s, commercial operator’s, or chauffeur’s license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand of a magistrate or any officer of a court of competent jurisdiction or any peace officer. It shall be a defense to any charge under this Section that the person so charged produce in court an operator’s, commercial operator’s, or chauffeur’s license theretofore issued to such person and valid at the time of his arrest.’

> “It will be noted that the statute provides that every licensee shall have his operator’s, commercial operator’s or chauffeur’s license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. It therefore occurs to us that it is absolutely necessary for the State to allege and prove that the accused was, on the date of the alleged offense, a licensee, for, as we construe the statute above quoted, it applies specifically to a licensee and unless the person accused was a licensee, we fail to understand how he could be guilty of violating the provisions of this portion of the statute in failing to display same upon demand.”

In holding the complaint insufficient to charge an offense under the statute mentioned, we are not to be understood as passing upon the validity of the statute. That question is not before us and is not decided. What we hold is that the instant complaint does not charge an offense under the statute.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
United States Securities & Exchange Commission EDGAR Filing


EXHIBIT 4.1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”) is entered into as of the 28th day of February, 2006, by and between QUIPP, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), and AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation (the “Rights Agent”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent are parties to a Rights Agreement dated as of March 3, 2003 (the “Rights Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Company and the Rights Agent, at the direction of the Company, hereby agree to amend the Rights Agreement as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Rights Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.

Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the reference to “March 2, 2006” in clause (i) of Section 7(a) with “September 4, 2007.”

2.

Exhibit A to the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by replacing all references to “March 2, 2006” with “September 4, 2007.”

3.

Exhibit B to the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the reference to “March 2, 2006” with “September 4, 2007.”

4.

Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

5.

This First Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Florida and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such jurisdiction applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such jurisdiction.

6.

This First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

QUIPP, INC.

By:  /s/ Michael S. Kady

Name:

Michael S. Kady

Title:

President and Chief Executive Officer

AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

By:  /s/ Herbert J. Lemmer

Name:  Herbert J. Lemmer

Title:  Vice President






2
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Preparing an Environmental Assessment for the Shell Chukchi Sea Ancillary Activities Notice for the 2013 Open Water Season
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Envi ronmental Assessment (EA) for Shell’s Ancillary Activities to take place in federal waters in the Chukchi Sea during the 2013 open water season. These activities include

 Offshore Ice Gouge Surveys

- approximately 621 mi (1,000 km) of ice gouge surveys

 Site Clearance and Shallow Hazards Surveys

- a total of approximately 1,988 mi (3,200 km) of tracklines in three survey areas
BOEM is inviting the public to comment on issues that should be considered by BOEM in preparing the EA.
BOEM received Shell’s Ancillary Activities Notice for operatio ns in federal waters on April 19, 2013. This notice is available at: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Leasing_and_Pl ans/Plans/2013

- 04

- 19%20Shell%20Chukchi%20Sea%202013%20Ancillary%20Activity%20Notice%20Open%20Wat er%20M....pd f
BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov , docket number BOEM

- 2013

- 0032 ). The deadline to re c eive these

co mm ents is June 5 , 2013 (12:00 midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that before including your address, phone number, e

- mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal id entifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask BOEM (prominently at the beginning of your submission) to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to d o so. BOEM will not consider anonymous comments.
# San

# Joaquin Valley 

# m HEALTHY

# AIR LIVINGAIR POLLUTIflil 

### CflilTRfll DISTRICT

June 

### 21,2013 Mr. 

### Mike Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluations Section California 

### Air Resources Board P.O. Box 

### 2815 Sacramento, 

### CA 95812
Dear 

### Mr. Guzzetta Attached is

### the Rule

### Action Package 

### for Rule 9610 

### (State lmplementation Plan Credit 

### for Emission Reductions Generated 

### through Incentive Programs), adopted by

### the District's 

### Governing Board on

### June

### 20,2013. We request 

### the California 

### Air Resources Board (ARB) transmit 

### this rule and

### the appropriate documentation to

### the United 

### States Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA) as

### a SIP revision. lncluded with 

### this Rule

### Action Package arethe

### following attachments 

## 1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

## 2. ARB 

### APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

## 3. Rule 9610 

## 4. Governing Board Resolution 

## 5. Governing Board Memo 

## 6. Evidence 

### of Public Hearing 

## 7. Final 

### Staff Report 

### with appendices 

## 8. 2013

### Annual Demonstration Report lf

### you have any 

### questions, please contact 

### Anna Myers 

### at (559)230-6100 

### or byemail at 

### anna.myers@valleyair.org. The District thanks 

### you and your staff for 

### your assistance.

r

### of Strategies 

### and lncentives 

### Attachments
Seyed Sadredln Executive 0irectorlAir Pollution Control 0fficer

fllorthorn Region 4800 Enterprise Way Modesr0, cA 95356.8718 Tel: {2091 557.6400 FAX:12091 557.6475 Central Region (Main 0ffice) 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 53726-0244 Tel: (559) 230.6000 FAX: {5591 230-6061 Southern Region 34946 Flyover Court Bakersfield, CA 93308.9725 Tel 661.392-5500 FAX: 681.392.5585 www.valleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com Prhtd il rryclåd på0d. úl
#### ASHABRANNER v. STATE.

No. 26421.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Upon a plea of guilty before the court, the punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

, The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.4



 






Exhibit 10.4




BIG LOTS 2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT




	 	 	 	 	 
	Optionee:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Number of Shares:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Option Price:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 




In accordance with the terms of the Big Lots 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as may be amended
(“Plan”), this Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the
Grant Date by and between you, the Optionee, and Big Lots, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Company”),
in connection with the Company’s grant of the right to purchase (“Option”), at the option of the
Optionee, an aggregate of the number of shares of common stock (“Number of Shares”), par value
$0.01 per share, of the Company. The Option is subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and the Plan. To ensure that you fully understand these terms and conditions, you should
carefully read the Plan and this Agreement. You also represent and warrant to the Company that you
are aware of and agree to be bound by the Company’s trading policies and the applicable laws and
regulations relating to the receipt, ownership and transfer of the Company’s securities.




Nature of Grant



The Option is a Non-Qualified Stock Option (“NQSO”) and, as such, is not an Incentive Stock Option
(“ISO”) within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.




Exercisability of Option



The Option will become vested in increments according to the vesting schedule. Except as provided
in the Plan, the Option, to the extent that it is vested, can be exercised any time from the date
it vests through the date that it expires. Vesting is always subject to all other Plan
requirements being satisfied.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Shares
	 	 	 	Vesting Date
	 	 	 	Expiration Date	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 

	 	 
	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 





Acceptance



By accepting the Option, Optionee agrees to all of the terms and provisions of the Plan and this
Agreement, and Optionee agrees to accept as binding, conclusive and final all decisions or
interpretations of the Committee (as defined by the Plan) upon any questions arising under the
Plan.