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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

WILLIAM NOTYCE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 10137

D.C. No.

1:16

- cr

- 00556

- LEK

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawai ‘ i

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 10, 2024

Honolulu, Hawai ‘ i

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Following a jury trial, William Notyce was convicted of attempted

possession with intent to distribute 50 grams o r more of methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Notyce

challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained

after his arrest

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUN 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, and the factual findings

underlying the denial for clear error. United States v. Brobst , 558 F.3d 982, 99 1

(9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo whether officers had probable cause for a

warrantless arrest. Id. at 997. W e affirm.

Notyce argues that officers did not have probable cause to arrest him when

they detained him in a parking garage on August 5, 2016

. “There is probable cause

for a warrantless arrest and a search incident to that arrest if, under the totality of

the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, a prudent person would

have concluded that there was a fair probability that the suspect had committed a

crime.” United States v. Struckman , 603 F.3d 731, 739 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting

United States v. Gonzales , 749 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984) ).

W hen the officers encountered Notyce in the parking garage , they knew that

a parcel (“the August 2 016 parcel”) containing a large quantity of

methamphetamine was mailed to a P.O. box ; that someone had checked the P.O.

box the same day that the parcel was delivered ; and that Notyce was in the post

office parking lot shortly before the box was checked . The officers also knew that

someone had opened the parcel a few minutes before the officers saw Notyce in

the parking garage of the same building where the par cel was opened

. The officers

further knew that Notyce was part of a June 2016 investigation relating to a parcel

containing over 2,000 grams of methamphetamine that was delivered to a P.O. b ox3

associated with Notyce. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances known to

the officers at the time, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a

fair probability that Notyce had committed a crime. As such, the district court did

not err in denying Notyce’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Second Amendment to the 
 2006 Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees of
HCA Holdings, Inc. and its Affiliates, 
 as amended and restated 

Effective as of February 1, 2013 
 WHEREAS, HCA Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously adopted the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees of HCA Holdings Inc. and its Affiliates, as amended and restated (the
“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has determined that it
would be advisable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan as provided below to allow the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company the authority to make grants to certain participants in the Plan subject to the terms and limitations of the Plan and such conditions and limitations as the Committee shall prescribe; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date first written above: 

1. Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of such section in its entirety and inserting the
following in lieu thereof: 
 “The Committee may, by resolution, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company its
duties under the Plan, subject to applicable law, the terms and limitations of the Plan, and such conditions and limitations as the Committee shall prescribe, including the authority, within specified parameters, to (i) designate Employees to
be recipients of Grants (excluding Grants in the form of an award of Shares or restricted Shares) under the Plan, and (ii) to determine the number of such Grants (excluding Grants in the form of an award of Shares or restricted Shares) to be
received by any such Participants; provided, however, that such delegation of duties and responsibilities to an officer of the Company may not be made with respect to Grants to eligible participants (a) who are subject to Section 16(a) of
the Exchange Act at the time of grant, or (b) who are at the time of grant, or are anticipated to be become during the term of the Grants, “covered employees” as defined in Section 162(m)(3) of the Code.” 

2. All other provisions of the Plan and the Grant Agreements shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent modified by the
foregoing.
Exhibit 10.2

 

March 28, 2013

 

Mary Elizabeth Higgins

3211 Ashby Avenue

Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

 

Re:                          Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

Dear Mary Beth,

 

Reference is made to that certain employment agreement between Global Cash Access, Inc. (the “Company”) and you, dated August 26, 2010 (the “Original Agreement”).

 

This letter confirms that the section of the Original Agreement entitled “Bonus” be, and hereby is, amended in its entirety as follows:

 

“Bonus:    In addition to your annual base salary, you will be eligible for a discretionary annual bonus with a target of 60% of your base salary. The bonus plan is based half on your organization’s performance, measured against goals you agree upon with the Chief Executive Officer and half based upon the earnings per share for the Company, which will be established in the first quarter of each fiscal year. Each of the components could result in a bonus of 150% of the target (90% of salary), depending upon performance. If threshold targets are not met the bonus level could be zero.”

 

Except as provided above, the terms of the Original Agreement remain in full force and effect.

 

Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing and dating this letter and returning it to me. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

 

Sincerely,

 

	
By:
    	
/s/ David Lopez
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:    David   Lopez
    	
 
    
	
Title:     President   and
    	
 
    
	
    Chief   Executive Officer
    	
 
    


 

Date:    March 29, 2013

 

I, Mary Elizabeth Higgins, have read this letter, understand its terms, and have accepted it as of the date written below:

 

	
By:
    	
/s/ Mary E. Higgins
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:    Mary   E. Higgins
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:     March 29,   2013
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3871 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 5-[[4- 

(acetylamino)-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]azo]-6-amino-4-hydroxy-, monosodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic 

acid, 5-[[4-(acetylamino)-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]azo]- 

6-amino-4-hydroxy-, monosodium salt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-NAPHTHALENESULFONIC ACID, 5-[[4- 

4 (ACETYLAMINO)-2- 

5 (TRIFLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL]AZO]-6-AMINO6 4-HYDROXY-, MONOSODIUM SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3871 IH

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 

5-[[4-(acetylamino)-2- 

(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]azo]- 

6-amino-4-hydroxy-, monosodium salt. (CAS No. 

75198–93–5) (provided for in 

subheading 2921.59.80) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

5 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
From: "Hunt, Tim" <Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org> 

To: Jim Berlow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Suzanne Rudzinski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schaffer, Amy" <Amy_Schaffer@afandpa.org>, "David 

Word" <dword@src-ncasi.org>, Michael Galbraith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/14/2011 03:28 PM 

Subject: Traditional Fuels information 

Jim, 

 

During our meeting with you, Mathy Stanislaus, Suzanne Rudzinski and others on June 

13, 2011 to discuss your concept paper on addressing the contaminant legitimacy 

criterion, you asked us to provide you with any additional data on traditional fuels 

contaminants that we had. While we do not endorse the notion that a guidance 

document will legally resolve the disconnect between the NHSM rule and its preamble, 

we are providing analysis on the data that we do have available. 

 

I am attaching two spreadsheets with data on Organics and on Trace Elements. The 

Organics spread sheet includes fuel oil information from EPA Doc. No. 745-B-99-003. 

The gasoline information was obtained from a U.S Department of Health, September 

1999, document entitled: “Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.” 

Formaldehyde data are from NCASI. 

 

In the Trace Elements spreadsheet, we compiled the data, based on solid and liquid 

fuels (although we separated coals from clean wood materials) in order to demonstrate 

how your propose grouping would look. The solid fuels represent bituminous and subbituminous coals as well as pet coke. Liquids represent number 2 and number 6 fuel 

oils. Clean wood includes bark, hogged fuel, stem wood and other clean biomass. In 

tab “EPA Fuels Consolidation,” we have provided a list of all of the fuels identified in the 

Boiler MACT ICR database, those that are the wood-based, and finally, those that we 

actually used in the “clean wood” fuels group. 

 

In the Organics spreadsheet, the data are less available for traditional fuels. In our brief 

literature search, we were unable to find any organics data for coals or pet coke. We 

are not surprised, since these elements are burned in the combustion process and have 

not previously been of broad interest. A more robust literature search may identify 

additional sources of information. 

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

 

 

Timothy Hunt 

Senior Director, Air Quality Programs 

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION 

1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org

202-463-2588 (phone) 

202-463-2423 (fax) 

www.afandpa.org
*Present*— Chancellors Ruteedge, Hctso2t, *and*Mathews.

#### Bowman and wife *vs.*Middleton.

OCTOBER, 1789.

CASE LIV,

n. b. p. 215.

Court ordei,. ed new trial, a“s® dict was gi-Sue directed

On hearing Messrs. Moultrie and Pringle, solicitors for complainants, on a question for a new trial at common law, on an issue formerly directed and verdict found for defendant: And on hearing Mr. Parker, solicitor for defendant against the motion, ordered, that a trial at law be had de novo. The court also recommended that in consequence of a difference of opinion in the surveyors employed in surveying the lands in dispute, that other surveyors be called in»
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3821 

To prevent States from limiting employers from using auto-enrollment for 

employee health insurance coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 15, 2009 

Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. BLUNT, and 

Mr. BUYER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To prevent States from limiting employers from using autoenrollment for employee health insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Improved Employee 

5 Access to Health Insurance Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON STATE RESTRICTIONS ON EM7 PLOYER AUTO-ENROLLMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No State shall establish a law 

9 that prevents an employer from instituting an auto-enroll10 ment process for coverage of a participant or beneficiary 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3821 IH

1 under a group health plan, or health insurance coverage 

2 offered in connection with such a plan, so long as the par3 ticipant or beneficiary has the option of declining such 

4 coverage. 

5 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

6 construed to supersede State law which establishes, imple7 ments, or continues in effect any standard or requirement 

8 relating to employers in connection— 

9 (1) with payroll; or— 

10 (2) the sponsoring of employer sponsored health 

11 insurance coverage, 

12 except to the extent that such standard or requirement 

13 prevents an employer from instituting the auto-enrollment 

14 process described in subsection (a). 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SEAM ASTER

LOGISTIC S, INC .; TOLL GLOB AL FOR

W A RDING (AM ER IC AS) INC ., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17295 D.C . Nos. 3:10-c v-05591-SC

3:11-c v-02861-SC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Sam ue l C onti, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

15, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s , a nd HUC K, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt M itsui O.S.K. Line s, LTD. (“ M OL” ) a ppe a ls the dism issa l of its Ra c k e te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz ations Ac t (“ R IC O” ) 

# F IL ED
MAY23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for Southe rn Florida , sitting by de signa tion.c la im s a ga inst Se a M a ste r Logistic s, Inc . (“ Se a M a ste r” ) a nd Toll Global Forwarding (Am e ric a s) Inc . (“ Sum m it” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. M OL a lle g e s tha

t Sum m it a nd Se a M a ste r’ s fra

udule nt wire and m a i l transm issions proxim

a te l y c a u se d its dom e stic injurie s. To show proxim ate c a use , M OL m ust prove “ som e dire c t re lation be t we e n the injury

a sse rte d a

nd the injurious c onduc t a lle ge d.” Holme s v . Se c . Inv e

stor Prot. C

orp. , 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992). M e re “ but-for” or fa c t ua l c a usation is insuffic ie nt. He mi Group, LLC v . C ity of N e w York , 559 U.S. 1, 9 (2010). So too is “ [a ] link tha t is too re m o te , pure ly c ontinge nt, or indire c t.” Id. (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). De fe nda nts’ u s e of U.S. m a ils a

n d wire s did not proxim

ate ly c a use M OL’ s injurie s. Those injurie s we re the dire c t re s ult of Sum m it a nd Se a M a ste r’ s fa lse She nz he n door de c l ara tions, whic h induc e d M OL to issuepa

ym e nts to R a inbow a

nd fore go the highe r origin re c e iving c ha rge s a n d spa c e prote c tion pre m ium s to whic h it othe rwise would ha ve be e n e ntitle d. The fa lse wire and m a il transm issions a

t issue m a y hav e fa c ilita

te d the ove ra ll a

rrange m e nt, but the i r role in the sc he m e wa s insuffic ie ntly dire c t to c o nstitutea

proxim ate c a

use of M OL’ s injurie s. Se e Ok

i S e mic onduc tor C

o. v . W e lls Fargo Bank

, 298 F.3d 768, 774 (9th C ir. 2002).
2B e c a

use M OL c a

nnot show proximate c a

use , we ne e d not a ddre ss whe the r it suffe re d “ dom e s tic injury ” within the m e aning of RJ

R N abisc o, Inc
. v . Europe an C mty
. , 136 S. C t . 2090, 2106-11 (2016). De fe nda nts’ M otion for Judic ia l Notic e is
a c c ordingly

de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

3
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

j Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

i Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2010-0141 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED / ^ 

DOCKETOST- / ^ - ^/V / ACTION DATE \p^^^ / ^^ ^ 

This approval and fjrant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is eiiective atkr 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the above^pfocedure, the 2J-da\ period in 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

25 May 2010 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

lATA Washington, 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - North Building 

Washington DC 20004
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1922

PEGGY RHEM , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER BURNEY, Virginia Beach Police Department; KEMPSVILLE BEHAVIOR HEALTH; DR. DEVITT; SARA ROGERS, Head Nurse; VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT; MR. MILLER, Bayside High principal; CPS; JESSICA OWENS; EBONY LUCK; ALEXANDRA WOOD, Virginia Beach Attorney; CHRISTIANNA CUNNINGHAM

- DOUGHERTY, City Attorney; JUDGE BULLOCK, Virginia Beach Judge Juven ile Department; ESTHER WIGGINS, Virginia Beach Judge Juvenile Department , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv
- 002 90

- RGD

- RJK )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Peggy Rhem , Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Peggy Rhem seeks to appeal the district court’s o rder dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because it is possible that Rhem could cure the
defects in her c omplaint through amendment, t he order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Blitz v. Napolitano , 70 0 F.3d 733, 738 (4th Cir. 2012)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3634 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ROSS, and Mr. SNYDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as 

the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE KELL POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Ar6 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George 

7 Kell Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3634 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Kell Post Of3 fice’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF ADVENT SOFTWARE, INC.



|                               |  |                                  
|------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------
|Name                           |  | State or Country of Incorporation
|Advent Australia, Pty. Ltd.    |  | Australia                        
|Advent Denmark AS              |  | Denmark                          
|Advent Norway AS               |  | Norway                           
|Advent Sweden AB               |  | Sweden                           
|Advent Hellas SA               |  | Greece                           
|Advent Netherlands BV          |  | Netherlands                      
|Advent Europe Limited          |  | England and Wales                
|Advent Switzerland AG          |  | Switzerland                      
|Advent Technology, Inc.        |  | Delaware                         
|Kinexus Corporation            |  | Delaware                         
|Hub Data, Inc.                 |  | Massachusetts                    
|MicroEdge, Inc.                |  | New York                         
|Second Street Securities, Inc. |  | Delaware                         
|Techfi Corporation             |  | Colorado
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Supplemental Response to the Department's letter of April

8, 2011 and Motion for Confidential Treatment.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/28 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL