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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

DAVID MICHAEL HENSEL,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30089

D.C. No. 2:93

- cr

- 00196

- RSL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

David Michael Hensel appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his “M otion for R elief from R estitution and E xpired J udgment L ien. ” We have

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

The district court correctly concluded that Hensel’s motion was barred by

* 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 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30089

claim preclusion because he brought the same claim in these proceedings

—

namely, that his restitution obligation expired in 2013 because the Mandatory

Victim s Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) could not be applied to extend the

enforcement of his pre

- MVRA restitution judgment

— that he had unsuccessfully

raised in a prior civil garnishment action initiated by the government

. S ee Stewart

v. U.S. Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating the requirements of

claim preclusion). Hensel’s argument that claim preclusion does not apply because

he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his garnishment action, and

because the instant motion raises the additional issue of “fiscal responsibility,” is

unavailing. See id. (claim preclusion prohibits litigation of claims that were rais ed

or could have been raised in a prior action); United States v. Angelone , 894 F.2d

1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990) (no right to effective assistance of counsel in

proceedings in which defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel);

see also Pennsy lvania v. Finley , 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (constitutional right to

counsel does not extend to collateral attacks).

Even if claim preclusion does not apply, the district court correctly

concluded that Hensel’s argument fails on the merits

. See United Stat es v.

Blackwell , 852 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that, because the MVRA

“merely increased the time period over which the government could collect . . .

fines and restitution,” it applies to judgments entered before the MVRA was3 21

- 30089

enacted and suc h application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause).

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT TO

THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC

AMENDED AND RESTATED

EXECUTIVE/MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN



WHEREAS, The Scotts Company LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (the “Company”), maintains The
Scotts Company LLC Amended and Restated Executive/Management Incentive Plan (“Plan”), as amended
and restated effective as of November 7, 2007;



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.5 of the Plan, the Compensation and Organization Committee (the
“Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is responsible for
reviewing the operation of the Plan and, subject to certain limitations, approving revisions of or
modifications to Plan provisions; and



WHEREAS, to reflect certain changes in the Company’s compensation practices, the Committee has
resolved to amend the Plan to change the name thereof.



NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 5, 2008, as follows:



1. The title of the Plan shall be renamed “The Scotts Company LLC Amended and Restated Executive
Incentive Plan” and the defined terms in the title shall be deleted in their entirety and replaced
with (the “Plan” or “EIP”) and all references in the Plan to “EMIP” shall be deleted and replaced
with the defined term “EIP” and the defined terms “Plan” and “EIP” shall refer to the Plan, as
renamed.



2. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment have the same meanings as in the Plan.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Denise S. Stump
 

Denise S. Stump
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Executive Vice President, Global Human Resources
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75271-75272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa

AGENCY: Office of International Affairs, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation (OPIC) announce the creation of the U.S.-Africa 
Sustainable Energy Program. Using $400,000.00 in grants and loans to 
U.S. not-for-profit entities, non-governmental organizations, and small 
businesses, the program will facilitate investment in sustainable 
energy projects in Africa. Interested parties should submit 
applications to OPIC. Applications will be reviewed by OPIC and DOE and 
applicants that meet OPIC Requirements and the Program's Selection 
Criteria, will be considered for the program. Specific information on 
OPIC Requirements and Program's Selection Criteria is available on the 
OPIC website (http://www.opic.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Billig, IA-32, International 
Affairs Specialist, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of American and 
African Affairs, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585, 
Phone: (202) 586-3209; Sam Smoots, Investment Development, Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20527, Phone: (202) 336-8645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the DOE-sponsored U.S.-Africa Energy 
Ministers conference in Tucson, Arizona, in December 1999, U.S. Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson and Overseas Private Investment Corporation's 
President and CEO George Munoz unveiled the U.S. Africa Sustainable 
Energy Program. This program promotes U.S. clean energy technologies 
and services in an effort to bring private capital and skills to Africa 
in a partnering relationship. Using $400,000.00 in grants and loans to 
U.S. not-for-profit entities, non-governmental organizations, and small 
businesses, the program will facilitate investment in sustainable 
energy projects in Africa. Interested parties should submit

[[Page 75272]]

applications to OPIC. Applications will be reviewed by OPIC and DOE and 
applicants that meet OPIC Requirements and the Program's Selection 
Criteria, will be considered for the program. Specific information on 
OPIC Requirements and Program's Selection Criteria is available on the 
OPIC website (http://www.opic.gov).

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
Theresa Fariello,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of International Energy Policy, 
Office of International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-30639 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Jones Apparel Group, Inc.Bristol, Pennsylvania

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 filed on December 26, 1991, May 15, 1996, June 16, 1999,August 23, 1999, August 2, 2001, June 12, 2003, June 2, 2004 and June 3, 2005 ofJones Apparel Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our reports dated February 10,2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule, and the effectiveness of Jones Apparel Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries'internal control over financial reporting, which appear on this Form 10-K.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLPNew York, New YorkFebruary 22, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2295 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2295

   To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule and other 
statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 3.0 percent, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 11, 2018

Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Warner, 
Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule and other 
statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 3.0 percent, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Adjustment of Income Rates 
Act of 2018'' or the ``FAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY.

    (a) Statutory Pay Systems.--The adjustment in rates of basic pay 
for employees under the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 
5302 of title 5, United States Code) that takes effect in fiscal year 
2019 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an 
increase of 3.0 percent, and such adjustments shall be effective as of 
the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 
January 1, 2019.
    (b) Prevailing Rate Employees.--The adjustment in rates of basic 
pay for the statutory pay systems that take place in fiscal year 2019 
under sections 5344 and 5348 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
equal to the percentage adjustment received by employees in the same 
location whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the 
statutory pay systems under subsection (a) of this section and 5304 of 
title 5, United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations 
where there are no employees whose pay is increased pursuant to 
sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate employees 
described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, shall 
be considered to be located in the pay locality designated as ``Rest of 
US'' pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, for 
purposes of this subsection.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21
 RETAIL VENTURES, INC.
List of Subsidiaries
 State of
    
    
    ParentRef. No.

    
    Name
    
    Incorporation
    
    
    Co. No.1.
    
    
    Retail Ventures, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    
    N/A2.
    
    
    Carlyn Advertising Agency, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    
    1.3.
    
    
    DSW Inc.(1)
    
    Ohio
    
    
    1.4.
    
    
    Retail Ventures Imports, Inc.(2)
    
    Ohio
    
    
    1.5.
    
    
    Retail Ventures Licensing, Inc.(3)
    
    Delaware
    
    
    1.6.
    
    
    Retail Ventures Services, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    
    1.7.
    
    
    DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc.
    
    Missouri
    
    
    3.8.
    
    
    Brand Card Services LLC
    
    Ohio
    
    
    3.9.
    
    
    Brand Technology Services LLC
    
    Ohio
    
    
    3.10.
    
    
    eTailDirect LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    8.11.
    
    
    Mint Studio LLC
    
    Ohio
    
    
    3.
 (1)
    
    Formerly known as Shonac Corporation. Following the completion of its initial public
offering on July 5, 2005, DSW Inc. became a controlled subsidiary of Retail Ventures, Inc. As of January
30, 2010, Retail Ventures, Inc. owned approximately 62.4% of DSWs outstanding Common Shares and
approximately 93.0% of the combined voting power of such shares.(2)
    
    Formerly known as VC Acquisition, Inc.(3)
    
    Formerly known as Value City Acquisition Corp.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-122418, 33-74320,
333-20321, 333-75281, 333-88985, 333-94219, 333-62234, 333-59410, 333-82788, 333-89224,
333-108320, 333-112541) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-118611, 33-43716, 33-71920, 333-02888, 333-69591,
333-89909, 333-87421, 333-52640, 333-43104, 333-89228, 333-89230, 333-106112, 333-106115) of
Cephalon, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2006, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia,
PA
March 10, 2006

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Scott A. Francis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.








/s/ Scott A. Francis


Name:    Scott A. Francis


Title:      Chief Financial Officer


Date:      December 14, 2010
* 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

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20246

Summary Calendar

FIDELIS OSAZUWA IDAHOSA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-03-CV-3944) 

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fidelis Osazuwa Idahosa appeals, pro se, the dismissal, for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his complaint seeking

review of the denial of his application for naturalization. Our

review is de novo. Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437, 441 (5th

Cir. 2002). 

Courts may review the denial of an application for

naturalization only after it has been reviewed in an administrative

hearing before an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Idahosa
2

did not comply with the applicable regulations for obtaining such

a hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.2; 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Because

Idahosa did not exhaust the available administrative remedies, the

district court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of his

application for naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d); see also

Townsend v. United States Dep’t of Justice Immigration &

Naturalization Serv., 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986). 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BAYCORP HOLDINGS, LTD. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,752
<SECURITIES>                                    17,163
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,045
<PP&E>                                         107,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,490
<SALES>                                         20,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,500
<CGS>                                           26,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,979)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered April 26 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01 720
- CR
STEPHEN MATTHEW POLI TO , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219 th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 80376
- 2012 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On April 19, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is not indigent and is represented by retained counsel; (3) counsel has not abandoned the appeal; and (4) counsel indicated he would be “issuing a letter” to the court reporter designating certain dates for hearings to be transcribed. We note that the trial court made no finding regarding when appellant’s brief would be filed. A three

- volume reporter’s record was filed in this appeal on January 15, 2013. That record was from the December 13, 2012 plea hearing. The docket sheet reflec ts that asuppression hearing may have been held on or around August 10, 2012, but it is not clear from the order d enying the motion to suppress that a hearing was actually held on the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER Indu Baily, official court reporter of th e 219th Judicial District Court to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either : (1) the reporter’s record of the suppression hearing and any other hearings that may have been conducted; (2) written verification that no other hearings were r ecorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not paid for the record s of any other hearings

. We notify appellant that if we receive verification of

non - payment, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 37.3(c).
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within SIXTY DAYS of the date of this order. If appellant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, we will, without further notice, submit the appeal without briefs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(b)(4).
We DIRECT t he Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Indu Baily, official court reporter, 219th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, Roger W. Dartt, President and Chief Executive Officerof  American Medical Technologies, Inc.(the “Company”), and Barbara Woody, Controller and principal accounting  officer of the Company, certify that:

 

1.   the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 

 
| /s/ Roger W. Dartt                    |   | Dated: April 14, 2004 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                                  |   |
| Roger W. Dartt                        |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 
| /s/  Barbara Woody                     |   | Dated: April 14, 2004 |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                        |   |                       |   |
| Barbara Woody                               |   |                       |   |
| Controller and principal accounting officer |   |                       |   |

 

----
#### TUTT v. STATE.

No. 16450.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1934.

Crumpton & Crampton, of Texarkana, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In disposing of the case originally on the ground that there were no bills of exception in the record, we were misled by a memorandum on the jacket containing the papers in *211the ease, and for that reason did not examine the transcript as closely as otherwise we would have done.

In the motion for rehearing our attention is directed to a bill which incorporates therein evidence introduced on a hearing of the motion for a new trial, which was sought on the ground that appellant had been led to believe he would be given a suspended sentence and for that reason had no witnesses present to testify on such issue. We regret that the bill of exception was filed too late to receive consideration. The motion for a new trial was overruled on the 12th day of July, at which time ninety days from said date was granted in which to file bills of exception. The time expired on the 10th day of October. The bill was not filed until the 12th day of October, being two days after the expiration date. Article 760, § 5, C. C. P., expressly requires bills to be filed within ninety days from the date of giving notice of appeal, and even the trial judge is denied authority to extend the time of filing beyond ninety days. Many authorities may be found in note *No. 44 under article 760, Vernon’s Ann. O. C. P. vol. 3.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.