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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

MICHAEL RIVERA DELGADO, AKA

Player, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-50059 

D.C. No. 8:19-cr-00167-DOC-5 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Michael Rivera Delgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 

for engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license and aiding and 

abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 922(a)(1)(A), and being a felon in 

* 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

FEB 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-50059 

possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We 

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

Delgado contends that the district court erred by treating his prior state 

conviction for making a criminal threat under California Penal Code § 422 as a 

crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2(a). Delgado’s argument is 

foreclosed by United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 

2010). Contrary to Delgado’s assertion, we are bound by Villavicencio-Burruel, 

which remains good law. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (holding that a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that 

precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority); Arellano

Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that 

Villavicencio-Burruel is no longer valid and stating that the decision “remains the 

law of this circuit”). 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00807-O-BP

 § 

ONE LOVE NATURAL MYSTIC LLC §

d/b/a ONE LOVE LOUNGE, et al., §

§ 

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 

AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Rajendra Kissoon’s Opposition Motion to 

Plaintiff’s entry of default and default judgment (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on this August 15th, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00807-O-BP Document 43 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 389
#### PEDIGO v. STATE.

No. 22062.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1942.

Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from the County Court of Baylor County in which the appellant was assessed a fine of $150 on a charge that he unlawfully possessed whiskey for the purpose of sale in said county.

One bill of exception complains of the ruling of the court in admitting, over appellant’s objection the following testimony of the witness Earl Chandler: - .“That he found four pints of whiskey in the car”;

We are unable to tell from this bill of exception what defendant is -complaining about. The bill does not show whose car it was, nor what circumstances, nor the pmv pose for which the testimony was given. When we examine the statement of facts we find from the evidence of the witness Earl Chandler that he was a night-watchman in the City of Seymour charged with the duty of “protecting public property and carrying out the liquor violations”. He saw the defendant on the night alleged at about 10:30. He heard a noise which sounded like glass or bottles and said further: “I looked. When I got about ten feet from the car I turned my flash light on the car. Mr. Pedigo was at the car and he tossed a package into the seat. He stepped back and tried to slam the door., but I kept him from slamming the door. I asked, ‘Pop, what you got there?’ He said nothing. I asked, ‘what’s in the car ?’ Pie said nothing. I could see the package in the car. The sack was torn and I could see what it'was. I -told him he had better come with me.”

The witness further stated that he and appellant went into the building about ten feet away and found four pints of whiskey, but he doesn’t say where he found it. We are unable to determine whether it was in the car or in the building from his evidence in the statement of facts. He says he saw the car drive into an alley about twenty minutes before that time and that he doesn’t know who drove it. That he didn’t see the defendant in the car, but did see him toss the package into it. The door was open and he could see the whiskey from the outside — could see two pints in the sack. He says further that he didn’t search the car; that he saw the whiskey there with the door opened and picked it up — the same whiskey that he saw appellant put into the car. Furthermore, he says he didn’t ask permission to search • the' car, didn’t know whose car it was, didn’t know how it came there and didn’t know who drove it there. Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence to show it was his car, if it was.

Under the foregoing condition of the record the question of the search of appellant’s car without a search warrant is not raised and nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is aU firmed.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Kent A. Savage, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Digital Lifestyles Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedure, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ KENT A. SAVAGE     
|                        |  | Kent A. Savage         
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 368

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing

for 4-year terms for Members of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1994

Mr. HUTTO (for himself, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Ms. HARMAN, Mr.

MCCURDY, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr.

ROTH, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. SOLOMON) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States providing for 4-year terms for Members of the

House of Representatives.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by

6 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
2

•HJ 368 IH

1 in 7 years after the date of final passage of this joint reso2 lution:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The House of Representatives shall be

5 composed of Members chosen by the people of the several

6 States, and the electors in each State shall have the quali7 fications requisite for electors of the most numerous

8 branch of the State legislature. The term of office of Rep9 resentatives shall be 4 years, except that in the case of

10 Representatives elected from odd-numbered districts the

11 term of office of the first incumbents elected following a

12 reapportionment of Representatives shall be 2 years and

13 in the case of Representatives elected from even-numbered

14 districts the term of office of the last incumbents elected

15 before a reapportionment of Representatives shall be 2

16 years.

17 ‘‘SECTION 2. Districts for the election of Representa18 tives from each State, whether composed of the whole or

19 a part thereof, shall be numbered consecutively, beginning

20 with the first, and corresponding to the number of Rep21 resentatives to which such State is entitled.

22 ‘‘SECTION 3. Section 1 of this article shall apply with

23 respect to terms of office of Representatives beginning

24 after the first reapportionment of Representatives after

25 the ratification of this article.
3

•HJ 368 IH

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. A Representative who officially declares

2 candidacy for another elected office of which the term be3 gins before the end of that Representative’s term of office

4 as Representative shall resign from the office of Rep5 resentative at the time of the declaration.

6 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress shall have the power to

7 enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1997
<CASH>                                           1,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,292)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,099
<PP&E>                                          35,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,616)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (96,374)
<BONDS>                                       (42,354)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,922
<SALES>                                         23,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,981
<CGS>                                           32,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,602)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 44 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 44

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of physical 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

   Mr. Solomon introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of physical 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act 
of physical desecration of the flag of the United States and to set 
criminal penalties for that act.''.

                                 <all>
```
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 57 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 104
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 57 Filed 09/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 105
#### A. B. C. STORES, Inc., v. TAYLOR.

No. 25371.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1941.

*393Orgain, Carroll & Bell, Major T. Bell, and John G. Tucker, all of Beaumont, for plaintiff in error.

Elton Cruse, of Beaumont, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This case (Tex.Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 294) is before us upon application for writ of error. The trial court’s judgment was reversed and remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals because of a conflict in the jury findings with respect to defendant’s negligence. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly holds that the findings of negligence on the part of defendant destroy each other.

The jury further found that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence proximately causing her injuries. Defendant insists that in the light of this finding the Court of Civil Appeals should have affirmed the judgment for defendant. •

Ordinarily such finding of contributory negligence would require a rendition of judgment in defendant’s favor. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Andrade, 132 Tex. 372, 124 S.W.2d 334.

The record shows, however, that the jury’s finding, in effect, upon the issue of unavoidable accident was that the occurrence upon which recovery was sought was an accident. This finding, carrying with it, as it does, the further finding that neither plaintiff nor defendant was guilty of negligence, is in conflict with the finding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as well as with the finding that defendant was negligent.

The trial court should have sustained plaintiff’s motion to return the jury to its room for further consideration of the charge, pointing out in this connection (without comment) the issues the findings to which are in conflict; and should have •denied defendant’s motion to render judgment in its favor.

While the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing and remanding the cause is correct, the ground upon which its judgment is predicated is erroneous.

The instruction of the Court of Civil Appeals to omit upon another trial the general charge contained in the second paragraph of the court’s definition of- unavoidable accident is correct.

The application for writ of error is dismissed “W. O. J. — Correct Judgment.” Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1728; Republic Ins. Co. v. Highland Park Independent School Dist., 133 Tex: 545, 125 S.W.2d 270-
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2ND QUARTER 2019*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE** AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 2-MO 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/28 4/1 4/4 45.00 25.00 45.00 43.00 166.00 -8.00

2/3/6/12 MO BILLS 4/4 4/8 4/11 45.00 25.00 45.00 43.00 166.00 -8.00

4/11 4/15 4/18 45.00 25.00 45.00 43.00 163.00 -5.00

4/18 4/22 4/25 45.00 25.00 43.00 40.00 26.00 197.00 -18.00

4/25 4/29 5/2 40.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 166.00 -21.00

5/2 5/6 5/9 40.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 166.00 -21.00

5/9 5/13 5/16 35.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 166.00 -26.00

5/16 5/20 5/23 35.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 26.00 192.00 -26.00

5/23 5/27 5/30 35.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 148.00 -8.00

5/30 6/3 6/6 35.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 148.00 -8.00

6/6 6/10 6/13 35.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 146.00 -11.00

6/13 6/17 6/20 35.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 26.00 172.00 -11.00

6/20 6/24 6/27 35.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 146.00 -11.00

1960.00 2142.00 -182.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

2-year note 3/21 3/26 4/1 40.00 0.00

5-year note 3/21 3/27 4/1 41.00 0.00

7-year note 3/21 3/28 4/1 32.00 0.00 71.46 41.54

3-year Note 4/4 4/9 4/15 38.00 0.00

10-year Note (r) 4/4 4/10 4/15 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond (r) 4/4 4/11 4/15 16.00 0.00 77.77 0.23

5-year TIPS 4/11 4/18 4/30 17.00 1.00

2-year note 4/18 4/23 4/30 40.00 0.00

2-year FRN 4/18 4/24 4/30 20.00 0.00

5-year note 4/18 4/24 4/30 41.00 0.00

7-year note 4/18 4/25 4/30 32.00 0.00 110.84 39.16

3-year Note 5/2 5/7 5/15 38.00 0.00

10-year Note 5/2 5/8 5/15 27.00 0.00

30-year Bond 5/2 5/9 5/15 19.00 0.00 55.36 28.64

2-year FRN (r) 5/16 5/22 5/24 18.00 0.00 0.00 18.00

10-year TIPS (r) 5/9 5/17 5/31 12.00 1.00

2-year note 5/16 5/21 5/31 40.00 0.00

5-year note 5/16 5/22 5/31 41.00 0.00

7-year note 5/16 5/23 5/31 32.00 0.00 73.08 51.92

3-year Note 6/6 6/11 6/17 38.00 0.00

10-year Note (r) 6/6 6/12 6/17 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond (r) 6/6 6/13 6/17 16.00 0.00 24.00 54.00

5-year TIPS (r) 6/13 6/20 6/28 14.00 0.00

2-year FRN (r) 6/20 6/26 6/28 18.00 0.00 0.00 32.00

678.00 412.51 265.49

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 83

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Settlement date does not yet reflect a proposed shift to an alternative bill settlement cycle
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 12

- 00647

- CR

CARLTON CHARLES PENR IGHT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1247950 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on June 28, 2012. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reve rsible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered September 29, 2015

.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddl e. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2972]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-008]


Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan

AGENCY:  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Department of Commerce is extending the time limit for 
the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Taiwan. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise, and the period of review May 1, 1998 through April 30, 
1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  Febraury 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Thomas Killiam or Robert James, 
Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 
or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  We initiated the review on June 30, 1999 
(64 FR 35125) following a request made by the petitioners on May 28, 
1999. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act directs the Department to make a 
preliminary determination within 245 days for each administrative 
review. The section provides, however, that if it is not practicable to 
complete the review within the foregoing time, the administering 
authority may extend that 245-day period to 365 days. Due to the 
reasons enumerated in the Memorandum from Richard Weible to Joseph A. 
Spetrini, Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Taiwan, Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results, dated 
January 28, 2000, the Department has determined that it is not 
practicable to complete this review within the 245-day time limit.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department is extending the time limits for the preliminary results of 
the administrative review by 120 days to May 30, 2000.

    Dated: January 28, 2000.
Richard O. Weible,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-2972 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P