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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

AARON MCQUEEN, a.k.a. Michael Tyler, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50435 

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00414-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

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

Aaron McQueen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank 

robbery and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2(a). 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 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50435

McQueen contends that the district court erred procedurally on several 

grounds. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 

F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court 

was not required to give advance notice of its intent to impose an upward variance. 

See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Moreover, the district court did not plainly err by failing to invite argument 

specifically from the government under the circumstances of this case. See United 

States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2008). And the record shows 

that any factual error by the court with respect to the date of McQueen’s release 

from his previous prison term does not constitute plain error because it did not 

affect the sentence imposed. See Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d at 937. Finally, the 

district court’s explanation for the sentence, which touched on several of the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 

F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

McQueen also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because a within-Guidelines sentence would have been sufficient to 

satisfy the goals of sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively 

reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the 

circumstances, including McQueen’s dangerous flight from police pursuit and his 
3 17-50435

prior robbery and assault convictions. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Furthermore, a 

district court may vary upward based on factors already incorporated into the 

Guidelines calculations. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 

(9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.
#### SELF v. STATE.

No. 16301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1933.

Earl M. Greer, of Wills Point, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The sentence recites that appellant has been convicted of transporting liquor. In order that the, sentence may follow the verdict of the jury and judgment of conviction, it is reformed to show that appellant has been convicted of -transporting intoxicating liquor.

As reformed, the judgment 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6248

RUBEN BENJAMIN SNIPES, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-02-887) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Monroe Mitchell, Coy E. Brewer, Jr., MITCHELL, BREWER, RICHARDSON, ADAMS, BURNS & BOUGHMAN, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ruben Benjamin Snipes, who is no longer a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Snipes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 10.37

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK'S FIRST BANK - FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


                                         530 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10036


February 23, 1996


Jones Apparel Group, Inc.
250 Rittenhouse Circle
Bristol, PA 19007

Attn: Wesley R. Card
      Chief Financial Officer


Dear Mr. Card:

I am pleased to advise you that The Bark of New York (the "Bank") has
increased the line of credit that we hold available for you and your
subsidiaries from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000.  This line is fully
available for import letters of credit and loans.

As you know, lines of credit are cancellable by either party at any time
and the making of advances and issuing letters of credit are subject to
the discretion of the Bank.  Without limiting the foregoing, the extension
of such credit facilities is subject to the Bank's satisfaction with the
business, operations, prospects and financial condition of the applicants
at the time of each drawdown or request for issuance of a letter of credit.

I look forward to further expanding our relationship with Jones Apparel
Group, Inc.


Sincerely,

/s/ Russel A. Burr

Russel A. Burr
Senior Vice President



cc: Herbert J. Goodfriend
    Vice Chairman and Secretary

    Gary Klocek
    Controller
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2267 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to prioritize certain pension claims 

in bankruptcy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. FRANKEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to prioritize certain 

pension claims in bankruptcy, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Pension Priority Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PRIORITIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 507(a) of title 11, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through 

9 (10) as paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively; 

10 and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2267 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(8) Eighth, allowed unsecured claims (not oth4 erwise subject to higher priority)— 

5 ‘‘(A) resulting from the termination of an 

6 employee pension benefit plan covered under 

7 section 4 of the Employee Retirement Income 

8 Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1003); 

9 ‘‘(B) for withdrawal liability determined 

10 under part 1 of subtitle E of title IV of such 

11 Act (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.); 

12 ‘‘(C) for awards pursuant to paragraph (2) 

13 of subsection (g) of section 502 of such Act (29 

14 U.S.C. 1132(g)(2)); 

15 ‘‘(D) for delinquent contributions described 

16 in section 515 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1145) 

17 and obligations treated as delinquent obliga18 tions under such Act; 

19 ‘‘(E) for other obligations owed to an em20 ployee pension benefit plan (if the plan is cov21 ered under section 4 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 

22 1003)); or 

23 ‘‘(F) for other obligations owed to the Pen24 sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation.’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2267 IS

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 Title 11, United States Code, is amended— 

3 (1) in section 502(i), by striking ‘‘507(a)(8)’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘507(a)(9)’’; 

5 (2) in section 503(b)(1)(B)(i), by striking 

6 ‘‘507(a)(8)’’ and inserting ‘‘507(a)(9)’’; 

7 (3) in section 523(a)(1)(A), by striking 

8 ‘‘507(a)(8)’’ and inserting ‘‘507(a)(9)’’; 

9 (4) in section 726(b), by striking ‘‘(9), or (10)’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘(9), (10), or (11)’’; 

11 (5) in section 1123(a)(1), by striking 

12 ‘‘507(a)(8)’’ and inserting ‘‘507(a)(9)’’; and 

13 (6) in section 1328(a)(2), by striking 

14 ‘‘507(a)(8)(C)’’ and inserting ‘‘507(a)(9)(C)’’. 

15 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF PLAN CONFIRMATION. 

16 Section 1129(a)(9) of title 11, United States Code, 

17 is amended— 

18 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’ at 

19 the end; 

20 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the 

21 semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and 

22 (3) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
#### TEXAS STATE LIFE INS. CO. *v.*ADAMS FUNERAL HOME, Inc.

No. 2223.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 1, 1939.

O. M. Street, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

*323Cecil R. Glass, of Marlin, for defendant in error.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This case is before the court on motion of defendant in error to affirm on certificate because of the failure of plaintiff in error to file the transcript within the time provided by law. The record discloses that the trial court rendered final júdgment on November 28, 1938. Petition for writ of error was filed on March 13, 1939 and service was had thereon on March 17, 1939. The time within which the transcript should have been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals expired May 16, 1939. R.S. art. 1839, as amended 1931, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1839. Defendant in error filed its motion to affirm on certificate May 17, 1939, during the term to which plaintiff in error’s appeal was returnable.

Under the provisions of R.S. art. 1841, the defendant in error is entitled to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed. Art. 1841, R.S.; 3 Tex.Jur. 737; Beaver v. Beaver, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 279, and authorities there cited.

The motion to affirm on certificate is granted, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          90,131
<SECURITIES>                                   122,938
<RECEIVABLES>                                  213,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,141
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,744
<PP&E>                                       2,410,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 478,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,532,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          572,636
<BONDS>                                      1,241,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,005
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,895,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,532,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               295,303
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,477
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (55,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### STRIPLING, County Judge, v. LAKEY et al.

No. 3652.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 28, 1940.

Charles McMillan and Ben Ramsey, both of San Augustine, for appellant.

Minton & Minton, of Hemphill, and John F. McLaurin, of San Augustine, for appel-lees.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This case is before us without brief for either party. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED  In connection with the Annual Report of Guardian Technologies International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory E. Hare, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the reporting 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: March 31, 2009 Signed: /s/ Gregory E. Hare Name: Gregory E. Hare Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40707

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL MEJIA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Victor Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-441-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel 

Mejia-Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mejia-Hernandez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40707 Document: 00515400309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2020
No. 19-40707

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40707 Document: 00515400309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2020
### Request for Inform ation FAA-2015-4854 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Lawrence: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-4854). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to p rocess your petition. Per the Notice to Section 333 of the FAA Moderni zation and Reform Act of 2012 Petitioners Regarding Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 107 letter poste d to your docket, we have review ed your original request and found you will be able to operate under part 107 without further relief (Tier 1). Your petition will be closed and you will be able operate in accordance with part 107 on the effectiv e date of August 29, 2016). However, we have identified a request to conduct ope rations outside of the United States. In addition to the applicable regulations of the fo reign country, operators of U.S.-regis tered aircraft will need to seek relief from the provisions of Part91, Subpart H of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to conduct operations outside of the United States. Please confirm your intention to pursu e operations outside of the United States as a comment to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information is submitte d, please save your tracking number and submit your tracking number along with the information subm itted to the docket via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any fu rther, we must receive the information described above by 9/16/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.
FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Friday , September 02, 2016 9:23 AM To: j ames.lawrence@uavfms.com Page 1 of 1 Request for Information FAA -201 5 -485 4

9 /2 / 201 6 https://email.dot.gov/owa/ 9 -AWA -AV S -333Exemptions@faa.gov/? ae=Item&t=IPM.Note &

...
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,056                   1,761
<SECURITIES>                                     6,607                   4,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                       60                   1,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     555
<INVENTORY>                                          0                     584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,978                   7,834
<PP&E>                                           1,299                   1,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                     734                     505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,581                   8,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,161                     949
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           104                      82
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,249                   7,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,581                   8,867
<SALES>                                              5                   1,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   378                   1,673
<CGS>                                                4                   1,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      263                   1,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,969                   9,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,410)                 (9,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,410)                 (9,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,410)                 (9,270)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.93)                  (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
The Board of Directors
Interlott Technologies, Inc.:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-78092)  on Form S-8 of  Interlott  Technologies,  Inc.  of our  report  dated
February 26, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of Interlott Technologies, Inc.
as of December 31, 1998,  and the related  statements  of income,  stockholders'
equity  (deficit),  and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year  period
ended December 31, 1998, and the related  schedule,  which report appears in the
December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Interlott Technologies, Inc.




/s/KPMG LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 27, 2000