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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

MAURICIO AGUILERA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10048 

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00988-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges 

Mauricio Aguilera appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his 

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review discretionary denials of sentence 

reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 

 

* 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

OCT 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10048

1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

It is undisputed that Aguilera is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction 

under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, and that the district court concluded that 

a sentence reduction from 168 months to 135 months was warranted in this case. 

However, Aguilera contends that the district court did not adequately explain its 

reasons for rejecting his request for a 120-month sentence. Under Chavez-Meza v. 

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018), the district court’s explanation was 

sufficient. In light of the record at the original sentencing and the district court’s 

certification that it considered Aguilera’s motion and took into account the relevant 

Guideline policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the 

district court’s orders demonstrate that it considered the parties’ arguments and that 

it had a reasoned basis for exercising its legal decisionmaking authority. See 

Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1966.

To the extent that Aguilera seeks to raise additional issues for the first time 

in his reply brief, we decline to consider them. See United States v. Kama, 394 

F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2024)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 87463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25686]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 213 / Monday, November 4, 2024 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 87463]]


                Memorandum of October 21, 2024

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 614(a)(1) 
                of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 621 of the Foreign 
                Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the 
                Secretary of State the authority under section 
                614(a)(1) of the FAA to determine whether it is 
                important to the security interests of the United 
                States to furnish up to $64 million in assistance to 
                Ukraine without regard to any provision of law within 
                the purview of section 614(a)(1) of the FAA.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, October 21, 2024

[FR Doc. 2024-25686
Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO SAMAGUEY

- OLVERA,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73063
Agency No. A200

- 695

- 352

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

S ubmitted July 15 , 2019 **

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON , Circuit Judges

. Ernesto Samaguey

- Olvera , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for
review of the Board of Immigr ation Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a moti on to reopen , and we review

* 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

JUL 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 73063

de novo questions of law

. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 4 00 F.3d 785
, 791

- 92 (9th Cir.

200 5 )

. We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Samaguey

- Olvera’s
motion to reopen , where he failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he
failed to appear at his hearing due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) ; Celis

- Castellano v. Ashcroft , 29 8 F.3d 888, 892 (9th

Cir. 200 2) ( applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether
exceptional circumstances were present). T he agency sufficiently considered

Samaguey

- Olvera’s affidavits in assessing the totality of the circumstances. See
Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F .3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA
adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision) ;

Fernandez v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the reco rd)

.

We do not agree with Samaguey

- Olvera’s contention that the BIA
improperly required him to produce a medical report or doctor’s note, or seek low

cost or free medical care, in order to establish his exceptional circumstances claim.

See Celis

- Castellano , 298 F.3d at 892 ( facts in alien’s affidavit, accepted as true,
were insufficient to show under a totality of circumstances that his illness3 17

- 73063

amounted to “exceptional circumstances” ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Requisitos de los 

informes de OSHA

PARA EMPLEADORES
Todos los empleadores tienen que reportar:

• todas las fatalidades relacionadas con el

trabajo dentro de 8 horas

Dentro de 24 horas, los siguientes 

incidentes relacionados con el trabajo:

• hospitalizaciones

• amputaciones

• perdidos de un ojo

Como reportar un incidente: 

• Llame al 1-800-321-OSHA (6742)

• Visite a www.osha.gov/report
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 174 (Thursday, November 13, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
TREATMENTS FOR AN AILING ECONOMY
Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 
entitled ``Treatments for an Ailing Economy: Protecting Health Care 
Coverage and Investing in Biomedical Research.'' Testimony was heard 
from Governor Janet Napolitano, State of Arizona; Raynard S. Kington, 
M.D., Acting Director, NIH, Department of Heath and Human Services; and 
public witnesses.
PREVENTING HOME MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
Committee on Financial Services: On November 12, the Committee held a 
hearing entitled ``Private Sector Cooperation with Mortgage 
Modifications--Ensuring That Investors, Services and Lenders Provide 
Real Help for Troubled Homeowners.'' Testimony was heard from Benjamin 
Allensworth, Senior Legal Counsel, Managed Fund Association; Thomas 
Deutsch, Deputy Executive Director, American Securitization Forum; 
Michael Gross, Managing Director, Loan Administration Loss Mitigation, 
Bank of America; and Molly Sheehan, Senior Vice President, Home Lending 
Division, JP Morgan Chase.
HEDGE FUNDS AND THE FINANCIAL MARKET
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Held a hearing on Hedge 
Funds and the Financial Market. Testimony was heard from David Ruder, 
former Chairman, SEC; and public witnesses.
```
* T h i s d i s po s i t i o n i s n o t a pp r op r i a t e f o r p u b li ca t i o n a n d i s n o t p r ece d e nt e x ce p t a s p r o v i d e d b y 9 t h C i r . R

. 36

- 3.

** T h e p a n e l un a n i m

o u s l y f i n d s t h i s ca s e s u i t a b l e f

o r d ec i s i o n w i t h o ut o r a l a r gu m

e n t
. S ee F e d

. R

. A pp . P

. 34 ( a )( 2 ).

N O T F O R P U BL I CA T I ON UN I TE D S T A TE S C OU R T O F A PP E A LS F O R T H E N I N T H C I RC U IT

A L E J A ND R O M O R E NO

- A L V I Z O , a ka A l e j a n d r o M o r e n o, P e t i t i o n e r,

v. E R I C H

. H O L D E R J r ., A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l,

Re s po n d e n t. N o . 05

- 73906 A g e n c y N o . A 090

- 982

- 194

M E M O R A NDUM *

O n P e t i t i o n f

o r Re v i e w o f a n O r d e r o f t he B o a r d o f I mm

i g r a t i o n A pp ea ls S u b m i tt e d D ece m

b e r 14 , 2009 ** S a n F r a n c i s c o , Ca li f

o r n ia B e f o r e : NOON A N , K

L E I N F E L D a n d I K

U T A , C i r c u i t

J u d g e s.

B eca u s e s ec t i o n 261

. 5 ( d ) o f t h e Ca li f o r n i a P e n a l C od e l ac k s t h e e l e m e n t of k n o w l e d g e r e q u i r e d b y 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2243 , i t do e s n o t m ee t t h e d e f

i n i t i o n o f t he
g e n e r i c f e d e r a l c r i m

e o f “ s e xu a l a b u s e o f a m i n o r ” un d e r E

s t r ada

- E s p i no z a v. 

# F I L ED

D E C 16 2009
MO LL Y C

. D W Y ER , C L ERK U

. S

. C O UR T O F APPEA LSM

u k a s key , 546 F

. 3d 1147 , 1152 ( 9 t h C i r . 2008 ) ( e n b a n c )

. S ee P e l a y o - G a r c i a v. H o l d er , ___ F

. 3d

___ ( 9 t h C i r . 2009 )

. L i k e w i s e , b eca u s e s ec t i o n 261

. 5 ( d ) do e s n ot

e x p r e ss l y i n c l u d e a b u s e o f a m i n o r a s a n e l e m

e n t o f t h e c r i m

e a n d i s n o t li m

i t e d to

c o n d u c t t a r g e t i ng y o ung e r c h il d r e n , i t f a il s t o m ee t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t e s t f

o r “ s e xu al

a b u s e o f a m

i n o r ” a r t i c u l a t e d b y U

n it e d S t a t e s v . M e d i na - V illa , 567 F

. 3d 507 , 513 ( 9 t h C i r . 2009)

. S ee P e l a y o - G a r c ia , ___ F

. 3d a t

___ . A cc o r d i ng l y , t h e B I A e rr ed i n d e t e r m i n i ng t h a t M o r e n o - A l v i z o ’ s p r i o r c o nv i c t i o n i s ca t e g o r i ca ll y an

a gg r a v a t e d f

e l o ny un d e r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1101 ( a )( 43 )( A )

. I d

. a t

___ . T h e g o v e r n m

e n t h a s n o t a s k e d u s t o un d e r t a k e a m od i f i e d ca t e g o r i cal

a n a l y s i s, n o r do t h e c o nv i c t i o n do c u m e n t s i n t h e r ec o r d e s t a b li s h t h a t p e t i t i o n er

w a s c o nv i c t e d o f a c r i m

e i nv o l v i ng s e xu a l c o n d u c t w i t h a y o ung e r c h il d. A cc o r d i ng l y , t h e I J a n d B I A e rr e d i n c o n c l u d i ng t h a t p e t i t i o n e r w a s d e po r t a b l e d ue
t o h i s p r i o r c o nv i c t i on P ET I T I O N F O R R E V I E W G RAN TE D.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7263** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DONALD JAY THOMAS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:92

- cr - 00284

- FDW

- 3; 3:14

- cv - 00345

- FDW )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25 , 2014

Before KING and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donald Jay Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Jay Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judg e issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court deni es relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mille r - El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with o ral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      54,710,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,512,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,595,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   509,000
<INVENTORY>                                 37,367,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           162,806,000
<PP&E>                                      91,078,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              38,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             248,707,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,902,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,783,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 199,149,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               248,707,000
<SALES>                                    185,924,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           185,924,000
<CGS>                                      118,548,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              163,562,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,316,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,600,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,200,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,400,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,400,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57









</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0077n.06

Filed: January 24, 2008

No. 07-5241

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JACO AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

On Appeal from the 

v. United States District Court for 

the Western District of Tennessee

NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________

Before: KENNEDY, MARTIN, COLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. JACO Airfield Construction, Inc. appeals the district court’s January 29,

2007 decision denying its motion for summary judgment and granting National Trust Insurance

Company’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether National Trust had a duty to

defend and indemnify JACO in a suit regarding JACO’s work at the Memphis Shelby County

Airport.

The district court's opinion carefully analyzed the allegations of the airport’s complaint

against JACO and concluded that those allegations arise from a scenario not covered by JACO’s

insurance policy from National Trust. We have carefully read the airport’s complaint, JACO’s

insurance policy, the applicable law, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we agree that the coverage

JACO purchased does not include the liability it is now facing. We therefore AFFIRM the District

Court's grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated in the District Court's opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (334)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,759
<PP&E>                                          17,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,683
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,970)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,900
<SALES>                                         88,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,661
<CGS>                                           63,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (120)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    103
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                103
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The information included in this Financial Data Schedule shall not be deemed
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to the finacial and other information included 
elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000926296
<NAME> FIRST MERCHANTS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  284,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (17,096)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           5,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         13,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   349,383
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41

        

</TABLE>
#### Paul and another, Respondents, vs. Piepenhagen, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Max E. Geline*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Nohl, Petrie & Blume,*attorneys, and *Lewis A. Stocking*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on February 9, 1943.