alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Randell Adams v. Kimberly McCray Adams

Appellate case number: 01-17-00305-CV

Trial court case number: 79412-f

Trial court: 300th District Court of Brazoria County

Appellant Randell Adams filed a motion for emergency relief. Appellee filed a response. 

No clerk’s record has been filed in this case and the motion did not attach a sufficient record for 

the court to determine whether relief was warranted. 

Accordingly, we deny the motion without prejudice to refiling with a sufficient record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 12, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                           3,309
<SECURITIES>                                     1,969
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (7)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,079
<PP&E>                                           3,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,596)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,245
<SALES>                                          6,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,090
<CGS>                                            4,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (643)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (653)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CLAUDIA SOLANO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50252 

D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00186-LAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges

Claudia Solano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

18-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for bringing in 

aliens and aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), (v)(II). 

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-50252

Solano contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to 

consider or respond to her specific mitigating arguments, (2) failing to explain the 

upward variance sufficiently, and (3) relying on clearly erroneous facts regarding 

her upbringing. The record shows the district court considered Solano’s arguments 

for a shorter sentence and addressed some of them. The court was not required to 

address specifically each of Solano’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The court adequately explained the sentence and its 

reasons for varying upward, noting Solano’s history of similar offenses and 

concluding that deterrence, just punishment, and promoting respect for the law 

supported an upward variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (en banc). Finally, the district court did not choose the sentence based 

on clearly erroneous facts concerning Solano’s upbringing: Rather, it relied on 

Solano’s own characterization of her childhood in explaining why it was not 

persuaded by her mitigating arguments. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 

1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (district court may rely on uncontested facts 

in the presentence report at sentencing).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 amended Annual Report of USCorp (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Spencer Eubank, Acting
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Spencer Eubank
              Spencer
                Eubank
              Acting
                Chief Financial Officer





Date:
      December 30, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Roy T. Rimmer, Jr. as Chief Executive Officer of TIMCO Aviation Services,
Inc. (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 my
knowledge:



|1. |  | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.                                                                                                                                                     

Date: August 13, 2004
    
    /s/ Roy T. Rimmer, Jr.Roy T. Rimmer, Jr.Chief Executive Office


33
```

                                                                                                   Exhibit 21

                                        MedImmune, Inc. Subsidiaries

1)       MedImmune Oncology, Inc.
2)       MedImmune West, Inc.
3)       MedImmune Finance, Inc.
4)       MedImmune Pharma B.V.
5)       USB Pharma Ltd.
6)       MedImmune Oncology, Inc. (Netherlands)
7)       Aviron (a)
8)       Aviron U.K. Ltd. (a)
9)       Aviron U.K. (a)

(a)      MedImmune, Inc. acquired Aviron and its subsidiaries effective January 10, 2002 through a
                  stock-for-stock exchange offer and merger transaction.
```
#### KING v. STATE.

No. 16896.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1934.

Foster Davis, of Haskell, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the • punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years.

It does not appear that appellant gave notice of appeal. Hence this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is 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.
**1960 1965**  **1970 1975**  **1980 1985**  **1990 1991**  **1992 1993**  **1994 1995**  **1996 1997**  **1998 1999**  **(R) 2000 (R) 2001**  **(R) 2002 (R) 2003**  **(R) 2004 (R) 2005**  **(R) 2006 (R) 2007**  **(R) 2008**

Vehicles registered (thousands) 73,858 90,358 111,242 137,913 161,490 177,133 193,057 192,314 194,427 198,041 201,802 205,427 210,441 211,580 215,496 220,461 225,821 235,331 234,624 236,760 243,023 247,421 250,845 254,403 255,918 Vehicle-miles traveled (millions) 718,762 887,812 1,109,724 1,327,664 1,527,295 1,774,8262,144,362 2,172,0502,247,151 2,296,3782,357,5882,422,6962,485,8482,561,6952,631,522 2,691,0562,746,9252,795,610 2,855,5082,890,221 2,964,7882,989,430 3,014,371 3,031,124 2,976,528 Fuel consumed (million gallons) 57,880 71,104 92,329 108,984 114,960 121,301 130,755 128,563 132,888 137,262 140,839 143,834 147,365 150,386 155,379 161,411 162,260 163,047 167,730 169,837 173,810 174,287 174,930 176,203 170,765 Average miles traveled per vehicle (thousands) 9.7 9.8 10.0 9.6 9.5 10.0 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.2 11.9 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.6 Average miles traveled per gallon 12.4 12.5 12.0 12.2 13.3 14.6 16.4 16.9 16.9 16.7 16.7 16.8 16.9 17.0 16.9 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.4 Average fuel consumed per vehicle (gallons) 784 787 830 790 712 685 677 669 683 693 698 700 700 711 721 732 719 693 715 717 715 704 697 693 667

For 2009, the methodology and data categories of the Highway Statistics series were updated. The data are revised with the new methodology back to the year 2000, so the data from 1960-99 are not comparable. In addition, this edition of table 4-9 is not comparable to previous editions. 

### Table 4-9: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption and Travel

**KEY**: R = revised. Motor vehicles, fuel consumption and travel data include personal passenger vehicles, buses, trucks and motorcycles.
1960-94: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics Summary to 1995, tables VM-201A and MF-221, available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi as of Feb. 16, 2010. 1995-2009: Ibid.,Highway Statistics(Washington, DC: Annual Issues), table VM-1, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm as of Apr. 13, 2011. **SOURCES NOTES**  Seetables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15 for individual highway vehicles.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton

JOYCE SCHAAR GOOD

v. Record No. 1120-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM AMERICAN SAFETY RAZOR COMPANY NOVEMBER 14, 1995 AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Robert B. Armstrong, on brief), for appellant. (Matthew W. Broughton; Monica L. Taylor; Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for appellees.

Joyce S. Good ("claimant") contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that American Safety Razor Co. ("employer") proved that Good was able to return to her pre-injury work as of October 12, 1993. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the

commission's decision. Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "[I]t is fundamental that a finding of fact made by the Commission is conclusive and binding upon this court on review. A question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of fact."2 Commonwealth v. Powell , 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533 (1986). "The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the commission's finding." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks , 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). The commission accepted the opinion of the treating physician, Dr. David S. Klein, that claimant was able to perform her pre-injury work without restriction as of October 12, 1993. Dr. Klein's opinion was based upon his continuous treatment of claimant, her normal physical examinations, and his approval of the job description submitted by employer. Dr. Teresa M. Harmon, a licensed clinical psychologist, agreed with Dr. Klein's opinion that claimant should return to work. The opinions of Drs. Klein and Harmon constitute credible evidence to support the

commission's decision. In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to give little weight to the medical reports of Dr. James Walker, a chiropractor, and to reject the opinion of Dr. Donald P.K. Chan, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Walker refused to comment on claimant's ability to return to work in November 1993 because he was not familiar with her job description. Dr. Chan, who examined the claimant on one occasion and found disability based on claimant's subjective complaints, deferred to Dr. Klein's judgment as to claimant's ability to work. "It lies within the commission's authority to determine the facts and the weight of3 the evidence, and its findings in that regard, when supported by credible evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal." Rose v. Red's Hitch & Trailer Servs., Inc. , 11 Va. App. 55, 60, 396 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1990). For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
exv10w9






Exhibit 10.9




Apache Corporation

Non-Employee Directors’ Restricted Stock Units Program Specifications




	 	 	 
	Share Plan:

	 	2007 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”), the terms of which are incorporated herein
by reference.
	 
	 	 
	Administration:

	 	This Program will be administered by the Stock Option Plan Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.
	 
	 	 
	Eligible Participants:

	 	Members of the Board of Directors of the Company who are neither officers nor employees of the Company
	 
	 	 
	Objective:

	 	The program is designed to be administered in conjunction with the provisions of the current
Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan as a means to recognize the non-employee directors for
services rendered through the awarding of equity compensation.
	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:

	 	August 14, 2008, and annually thereafter
	 
	 	 
	Grant*:

	 	1,500 Restricted Stock Units in 2008,
with comparable value annually thereafter
	 
	 	 
	Program Term:

	 	Until termination of the 2007 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan
	 
	 	 
	Vesting:

	 	50% — 30 days after grant

50% — 12 months after grant
	 
	 	 
	Payment:

	 	Payment upon vesting shall be made, at the election of the director, either (i) 100 percent in shares of
Apache common stock or (ii) 40 percent in cash and 60 percent in shares of Apache Common Stock.
Election must be made at time of grant and will be applicable to both vestings.
	 
	 	 
	Dividend Equivalents

	 	On the unvested portion of the grant, the director receives amount equal to dividends on Apache common
stock. Dividend equivalents are paid in cash.
	 
	 	 
	Other Events:

	 	Accelerated vesting upon death or termination without cause, including retirement.








 




			
	*	 	These grants do not result in any change to the cash retainers for board and committee service
paid under the provisions of the Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan.





August 14, 2008
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 16762.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1934.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1934.

Lee P. Pierson, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for burglary; punishment- assessed being three years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. We observe that no notice of appeal appears anywhere in the record, without which no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

A dismissal was ordered on May 16, 1934, for the reason that the record failed to show notice of appeal, which is an essential requisite to the consideration of the appeal by this court. See Vinson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 70 S.W.(2d) 592; Scott v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 43 S.W.(2d) 96; Shaddox v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 45 S.W.(2d) 980; Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 54 S.W. (2d) 114; Turman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 577; Pullen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 181.

 Seeking a writ of certiorari to correct the alleged imperfection in the record, there are before this court three documents, two of which are signed by the appellant’s attorney and not verified by affidavit, and one is signed by the official court reporter in which he states that appellant did give notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. This document is signed, but contains no verification by affidavit. There has just been filed with the clerk of this court an affidavit to the effect that notice of appeal was given and made a part of the record in the trial court. However, the document contains no certified copy of the entry of the notice of appeal in the trial court. There is before this court no copy of the notice of appeal alleged to have been given in the trial court. The law permits the completion of a record by way of certiorari where the proper procedure is pursued. To receive consideration, the application for a writ of certiorari should set out in terms the notice of appeal as it is claimed to have appeared in the record in the trial court. The application should be verified by affidavit. See Tex. Jur. vol. 4, p. 487, § 340. See, also, McElreath v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S.W. (2d) 462, and cases collated in the motion for rehearing, including Nunn v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 50 S. W. 713 ; Metcalf v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 382, 27 S.W. (2d) 807. In the Metcalf Case, supra, and others, it has been de-*278dared that the application for a writ of cer-tiorari to cure defects in the record will not be awarded unless the application contains a certified copy of the part of the record sought to be inserted.

The motion for certiorari is denied, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINACIAL STATEMENTS OF PROFESSIONALS GROUP,
INC. (FORMERLY PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT GROUP) AS OF JUNE 30,
1998 AND FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED. (IN THOUSANDS)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           361,467
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       2,880
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      431
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 382,672
<CASH>                                           1,991
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 515
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 465,938
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                281,708
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             30,531
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  15,500
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,506
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   465,938
<PREMIUMS>                                      48,323
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             10,430
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   4
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,044
<BENEFITS>                                      38,824
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            13,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.64
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 239,151
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             55,696
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                             (17,072)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               8,511
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                18,928
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                281,708
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Masaaki Tanaka, 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, to my knowledge:



Dated:
November 7, 2007

| |  | By: |  | /s/MASAAKI TANAKAMasaaki Tanaka Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks