alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE GUADALUPE VARGAS-FR IAS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10347

D.C . No. 1:11-c r-00282-AW I
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Jose Gua da lupe Va

rga s-Fria s a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd
c ha lle nge s the 58-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for be ing a de porte d a lie n found in the Unite d State s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Va rga s-Fria s’ s c ounse l ha s 

# FIL ED M AY18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).file d

a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re l ie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c ord. Va rga s-Fria s ha s file d a

pro se supple m e nta l ope ning brie f, the gove rnm e nt ha s file d a n answe ring brie f, and Va

rga s-Fria s ha s file d a pro se re ply

brie f. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. W e de c line to c onside r Varga s-Fria s’ s c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l on dire c t a ppe a l be c a

u se the re c o rd is insuffic ie ntly de ve l ope d to e va luate tha t c la im , and Va rga s-Fria s’ s le g a l re pre se ntation wa s not so inade quate a s to obviously de ny his right to c ounse l. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 2011). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 3
- 1 0 3 4 7 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE18,UNITED STATES CODE)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), I, Patrick P. Fourteau, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,that:

ThisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| October 28, 2005 | By:    | /s/ PATRICK P. FOURTEAU                              |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Name: Patrick P. Fourteau                            |
|                  |   | Title: *Chief  Executive Officer and President* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation and will be retainedby First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jules Williams v. Marvlyn Jennifer Williams

Appellate case number: 01-16-00970-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-35489

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County

On July 18, 2017, appellee filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Alternatively, Motion to 

Strike Appellant’s Brief Alternatively, Motion for an Amended Brief.” On July 24, 2017, appellant 

filed a response entitled as a “Motion to Oppose Request by Appellee for Appellant Brief to Be 

Stricken or Appeal Dismissed.” Because appellant’s “motion” is a response opposing the relief 

sought by appellee, we dismiss it as a motion and consider it as an objection to appellee’s motion.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and for alternative relief is DENIED.

On July 24, 2017, appellant also filed a “Motion to Request a Default Judgment for Failure 

to File Reply Brief Within Specified Timeframe.” The motion requests that we not consider 

appellant’s brief and impose sanctions for its being filed 4 days after the filing deadline. 

Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED. All other pending motions filed as of this date are dismissed as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting individually 

Date: July 27, 2017
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/11/2015 4:33:37 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 06/11/2015 4:33:37 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
C ALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

– Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule N o(s ): 2449 Date ad opted/ Amended /Rescinded: July 1 1, 2 014

Rule T itle(s): Control of O xides O f N itrog en Emission s from O ff

- Road Diesel Vehicles

Dat e Submitted t o ARB: 08/14/2014

If an Amended Rule, D at e Last A mended ( or A dopted): Ma y 2, 2008

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Randall Pasek Phone Number: 909

- 396

- 2251 E- mail Address: rpasek@aqmd.gov

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Administrative amendment to SCAQMD Rule 2449 to revise the reference from Section 2449.3 to Section 2449.2

of Title 13 of the FCalifornia Code of Regulation.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission factor(s)

and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase* Decrease** N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: N/A

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: N/A Area Affected: N/A

F uture Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :

N/ACALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): N/A

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): N/A

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Fo rm will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

Number of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: N/A Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as

necessary) : N/A

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: N/A

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): N/A Work Practice Standards in Section(s): N/A

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): N/A Reporting Requirements in Section(s): N/ACALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: This is an administrative amendment and does not change any calculations and requirements

.

5/1/2002
* 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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20553

AMERADA HESS CORPORATION;

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TST PARAFFIN SERVICE COMPANY, INC.;

Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee,

v.

PETROSURANCE CASUALTY COMPANY; ESPERANZA LOPEZ MORA;

REGINA VALENZUELA, as next friend of BRENDA JANETTE MONTANEZ, a

minor and sole heir and representative of the ESTATE of OMAR

MONTANEZ; BRENDA JANETTE MONTANEZ, a minor child and sole heir of

the ESTATE of OMAR MONTANEZ; and, OMAR MONTANEZ, ESTATE of;

Third Party Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-163)

May 10, 1999

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has considered appellants’ positions in light

of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. Having done

so, we find no reversible error of fact or law and affirm for the

reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Advanced
Lighting Technologies, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the
twelve months ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,917  
<SECURITIES>                                       350
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       375
<INVENTORY>                                     44,740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,212
<PP&E>                                         101,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,575
<BONDS>                                        117,332
<COMMON>                                            20
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,569
<SALES>                                        163,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,893
<CGS>                                           95,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    65
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (7,292)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (604)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
        

</TABLE>
22539

#### Elizabeth S. TYSON, Appellant v. UNITED FOOD SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

(346 S. E. (2d) 27)

Supreme Court

*Carl N. Lundberg,*of Law Offices of *J. Marvin Mullis, Jr.,*Attorney at Law, P.A., Columbia, *for appellant.*

*Robert E. Staton,*of *Quinn, Brown, Staton & Boyle,*Columbia, *for respondent.*

*272Submitted Feb. 26, 1986.

Decided July 11, 1986.

Ness, Chief Justice:

In this action brought under the State Human Affairs Law, the trial judge refused to enter a default judgment in favor of appellant Tyson and granted respondent United Food Services, Inc. leave to file a late answer. We affirm.

Tyson was employed by United at its facility at Fort Jackson. Her supervisor allegedly made sexual advances which Tyson rejected. Tyson’s employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

Tyson filed a complaint with the State Human Affairs Commission and requested an independent investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. United cooperated fully with both investigations.

United was notified by the Human Affairs Commission that Tyson’s complaint had been dismissed as being without merit, but the EEOC investigation was still pending. Tyson brought this action in circuit court, and served United through the Secretary of State. When United failed to answer within the prescribed time, Tyson moved for entry of a default judgment. United moved to file a late answer as soon as it received notice of the motion for default.

The trial judge held United had demonstrated excusable neglect by showing its confusion over the various claims instituted by Tyson. He concluded United could reasonably have believed the complaint related to the action then pending before the EEOC, to which United had already responded. We agree.

Tyson’s proliferation of claims through several different sources could well have confused United. We find no abuse of discretion. See, *Myers v. Food Town Stores, Inc.,*276 S. C. 571, 281 S. E. (2d) 108 (1981).

The decision of the trial judge is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.
NUMBER 13-15-00590-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

FRANK LOPEZ, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through its District Attorney, the Honorable

Mark Skurka, has filed a motion for dismissal of its appeal pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this 

Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Having 
2

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

29th day of December, 2015.
Exhibit 10.2 Third Modification






Execution Version


THIRD MODIFICATION TO REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT NOTE




This THIRD modification to REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT NOTE (this “Modification”) is entered into as of May 3, 2013, by and between PLANTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Bank”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of (i) that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of May 9, 2011 (the “Credit Agreement”) between Borrower and Bank, and (ii) that certain Revolving Line of Credit Note in the original principal amount of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,00.00), executed by Borrower and payable to the order of Bank, dated as of May 9, 2011 (as amended, restated, modified and/or supplemented prior to the date hereof, the “Note”).


WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set forth in the Note, and have agreed to modify the Note to reflect said changes.


NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Note shall be modified as follows:


1.    The maturity date of the Note is hereby modified to be May 9, 2016.


2.    Upon the satisfaction of the conditions precedent to that certain Third Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2013, by and between Borrower and Bank, the effective date of the changes set forth herein shall be May 3, 2013.


3.    Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Note remain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification.  All terms defined in the Note shall have the same meaning when used in this Modification.  This Modification and the Note shall be read together, as one document.


4.    Borrower certifies that as of the date of this Modification, and after giving effect to this Modification, there exists no Event of Default under the Note, nor any condition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both would constitute any such Event of Default.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Modification to be executed as of the day and year first written above.


	
					
	PLANTRONICS, INC.
	 
	WELLS FARGO BANK,

	 
	 
	 
	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Pamela Strayer
	 
	By:
	/s/ Lynette C. Fletcher

	Name:
	Pamela Strayer
	 
	Name:
	Lynette C. Fletcher

	Title:
	Sr. VP/C.F.O.
	 
	Title:
	Sr. V.P./R.M.
Exhibit 21

                         KANEB PIPE LINE PARTNERS, L.P.
                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST



KANEB PIPE LINE PARTNERS, L.P.
    Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership, L.P.
        Support Terminal Operating Partnership, L.P.
           ST Services Ltd
               ST Eastham  Ltd.
           ST Linden Terminal, LLC
           ST/Center Chillicothe Terminal LLC
        Support Terminal Services, Inc.
           StanTrans, Inc.
               StanTrans Holding, Inc.
               StanTrans Partners, L.P.
        Shore Terminals LLC
EXHIBIT 32

 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 the Quarterly Report of eGene, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ming S. Liu, Chief
Executive Officer 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: August 11, 2005       By: /s/ Ming S. Liu
                             Ming S. Liu
                             Chief Executive Officer, Executive
                             Vice President and Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1696

FREDIS GONZALEZ-REYES,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

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

Appeals

Submitted: April 26, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. 

McIntyre, Assistant Director, John J.W. Inkeles, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fredis Gonzalez-Reyes, a native and citizen of El 

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. 

Gonzalez-Reyes first challenges the determination that 

he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the 

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and 

conclude that Gonzalez-Reyes fails to show that the evidence 

compels a contrary result. 

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gonzalez-Reyes 

cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of 

removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold 

the finding below that Gonzalez-Reyes failed to qualify for 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c) (2010). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
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 the Quarterly  Report of EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ending  September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
 "Report"),  I,  Dennis R. Alexander,  Chief Executive
Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company,
 certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge and
belief 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
 March 5, 2010





/s/ Dennis AlexanderDennis
      R. AlexanderCEO
      and Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.