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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

ROSHANAK KHADEM, AKA Roxanne Khadem, AKA Roxy Khadem,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 50245

D.C. No.

2:18

- cr

- 00288

- SVW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2023 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Roshanak Khadem challenges her sentence for conspiracy to commit

healthcare fraud. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them

* 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

NOV 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

here. 1 We affirm.

Khadem did not object to her sentence below but now argues that the

sentencing judge failed to “adequately explain” it. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007)

. “ Where a procedural sentencing error is raised for the first time on

appeal, it is reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Rangel , 697 F.3d 795, 800

(9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The sentencing judge’s explanation of

Khadem’s sentence was not plainly erroneous, particularly given that the

sentence’s one

- month upward departure fro m the Guidelines range was “minor.”

Gall , 552 U.S. at 50 (“[A] major departure [from the Guidelines range ] should be

supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.”). The sentencing

judge “set forth enough” to show that he “considered the parties’ arguments and

ha [ d ] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”

Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (citation omitted). He sentence d

Khadem after a two

- day sentencing hearing, explained the variance bet ween the

Guidelines range and the sentence, and referenced Khadem’s offense, history, and

characteristics.

Despite this adequate justification, Khadem contends that the sentencing

1 Khadem’s Motion to Strike Government’s Answering Brief, filed May 11, 2023,

is DENIED

. Khadem has made no showing that the government violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 or its obligation s under the plea agreement by citing the Presentence Investigation Report in its brief.3

judge did not explain the components of her sentence

. To the extent that this

argument is a disguised attempt to challenge the sentencing judge’s calculation of

the Guidelines range, it fails. At the sentencing hearing , defense counsel agreed

that the Guidelines range was calculated correctly given the sentencing judge’s

findings

. On appeal, Khadem alleges that the sentencing judge never made those

findings. The record belies this assertion

. The sentencing judge determined

Khadem’s criminal history category, the loss amount, and the applicability of the

le adership

- role enhancement and did not plainly err in doing so.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 24.1

                 Consent of Independent Auditors<PAGE>


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference in this Form S-8 Registration Statement of our report dated May 17,
1996, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial 
statement schedules of Definition, Ltd., for the year ended December 31, 
1995, included on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1995.  We also 
consent to the reference to this firm under the heading "Experts" in this 
Registration Statement.


                                   /s/

                                   SMITH, DANCE & COMPANY
                                   Certified Public Accountants
                                   Irving, Texas
                                   January 7, 1997
*Present*— Chancellors Rutledge, Hutso®, and Mathews.

#### Haasum Ernst *vs.*Tharon and Muller.

CAS3 XY2*

Reg. book, F 69-

Miliitertoput money out to interest.

The master’s report was read by Gen. C. C. Pinck-ney, and ordered to be confirmed by consent; and that the balance of money in the hands of the defendant be paid to 77, - the master, *to be by him put out to interest, on security, subject to the further order of the*court.

*116SEPTEMBER. 1785.

CASE XVII.

Reg. book, ’

A petition signed by W. Drayton and St. Drayton wag p1.egented by Mr. Bee, praying that a commission in nature of a writ de lunático enquirendo may issue, to en-qU}re 0f tl,0 lunacy of Thomas Drayton. — Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Bee, and on reading the affidavits of doctor Turnbull, and John Pritchard the goaler, ordered that the commission do issue.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 398 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to restore and protect access 

to Medicaid discount drug prices for university-based and safety-net clinics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. DENT, and Mr. 

SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to restore 

and protect access to Medicaid discount drug prices for 

university-based and safety-net clinics. 

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 ‘‘Prevention Through 

5 Affordable Access Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 398 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTORING AND PROTECTING ACCESS TO DIS2 COUNT DRUG PRICES FOR UNIVERSITY3 BASED AND SAFETY-NET CLINICS. 

4 (a) RESTORING NOMINAL PRICING.—Section 

5 1927(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1396r–8(c)(1)(D)(i)) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subclause (IV) as sub8 clause (VI); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subclause (III) the fol10 lowing new subclauses: 

11 ‘‘(IV) An entity that is operated 

12 by a health center of an institution of 

13 higher education, the primary purpose 

14 of which is to provide health services 

15 to students of that institution. 

16 ‘‘(V) An entity that is a public or 

17 private nonprofit entity that provides 

18 a service or services described under 

19 section 1001(a) of the Public Health 

20 Service Act.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall be effective as of the date of the enact23 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4083 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4083

To suspend temporarily the duty on polyoxethylene-/alkyletherphosphate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2009

   Mr. Dent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on polyoxethylene-/alkyletherphosphate.

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

SECTION 1. POLYOXETHYLENE-/ALKYLETHERPHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Polyoxethylene-/    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        alkyletherphospha                                                  31/2011.......
                        te (CAS No. 68439-
                        39-4) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        3402.90.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32**
**RULE 13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officers of Tollgrade Communications, Inc.(the “Corporation”) hereby certify that the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Corporation.
Dated: February 28, 2005       /s/ MARK B. PETERSON         Name: Mark B. Peterson    Title: Chief Executive Officer           /s/ SAMUEL C. KNOCH         Name: Samuel C. Knoch    Title: Chief Financial Officer
Amended Director Compensation Program



 Exhibit 10.5 

SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION 

Director Compensation Program 

Effective as of May 4, 2010 
  

	 	•	 	 Only non-employee directors will be compensated for serving as directors of the Company 



 

	 	•	 	 Each non-employee director will receive an annual cash retainer of $60,000 



 

	 	•	 	 The chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors will receive an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000



  

	 	•	 	 No other director will receive additional compensation for Board service 



 

	 	•	 	 All directors will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend meetings of the Board of Directors and committees of the Board of
Directors
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4117 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to clarify that the delivery of 

milk to a handler under a Federal milk marketing order occurs when 

the raw milk is received at the producer’s farm, and the producer 

may not be charged for transportation-related costs incurred by a handler 

after the raw milk leaves the farm, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. ARCURI (for himself, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. 

HOLDEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to clarify that 

the delivery of milk to a handler under a Federal milk 

marketing order occurs when the raw milk is received 

at the producer’s farm, and the producer may not be 

charged for transportation-related costs incurred by a 

handler after the raw milk leaves the farm, 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, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4117 IH

1 SECTION 1. NO IMPOSITION ON MILK PRODUCERS OF 

2 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED COSTS IN3 CURRED BY HANDLERS AFTER RAW MILK 

4 LEAVES FARMS. 

5 Section 8c(5)(c) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

6 (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)(C)), reenacted with amendments by the 

7 Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘In 

9 addition, for purposes of such paragraphs (A) and (B), 

10 the delivery by a producer or association of producers of 

11 raw milk to a handler shall be deemed to occur when the 

12 raw milk is received at the producer’s farm, whether di13 rectly by the handler or by a transportation agent acting 

14 on behalf of the handler, and the producer may not be 

15 charged for transportation-related costs, including hauling 

16 fees, stop fees, and fuel surcharges, incurred by a handler 

17 or the transportation agent after the raw milk leaves the 

18 farm.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent, v. COLTEX, INCORPORATED, Petitioner.

(326 S. E. (2d) 649)

Supreme Court

Heard Oct. 3, 1984.

ORDER

Petitioner requests the Court to issue a *writ of certiorari*to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in *Southern Railway Company v. Coltex, Inc.,*318 S. E. (2d) 284 (S. C. App. 1984).

The writ is granted as to all questions presented.

The Appendix shall be docketed as the Transcript of Record as of the date of this order. Appellant-Petitioner shall file eight additional copies of the Appendix by the deadline for filing the petitioner’s brief. The materials in the Appendix are not required to be certified copies. The parties are directed to file briefs in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, except only one original brief and nine copies shall be required. This matter shall proceed in conformity with the Court’s rules.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raj Sabhlok, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|By:                                                                        |  | /s/ RAJ SABHLOK
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Raj Sabhlok                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Corporate Development
|Date: November 10, 2003
ex10-5.htm



Exhibit 10.5


 



Sales contract of Industrial and Mineral Products


 


                      Contract No.______


Supplier: Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon Black Co., Ltd


 


Buyer:    Shifeng Juxing Tyre Co.,Ltd


 


Place of signing contract: Qingxu: Taiyuan


 


Date of signing contract: January 8, 2009







1. Product name, trade mark, model, quantity, amount of money, delivery time and quantity


 



	
Product Name

	
Model

	
Unit

	
Quantity Required/Monthly

	
Price


(RMB per ton)

	
Amount(RMB)

	
Remarks


	
Carbon Black

	
N220

	
Ton

	
200

	
5000

	  	
1. The price in this agreement is current market price 

2. The quantity is decided by the number actually occurred.




	
Carbon Black

	
N330

	
Ton

	
200

	
4700

	  	
 


	
Carbon Black

	
N660

	
Ton

	
200

	
4700

	  	  
	
Total

	  





 


2. Quality requirements, technical standards, the conditions and duration of which supplier is responsible for: National standard or by buyer’s standard


 


3. The place of delivery and method: buyer’s warehouse, Specific quantity and delivery time are subject to telephone or fax-based communication


 


4. Means of transport, expense for transport and related items: The buyer bear the burden


 


5. Reasonable wear and tear and method of calculation    None


 


6. Packaging standards, supply and recycle of packaging materials   None


 


7. Acceptance criteria, methods, and period to hold discussion on goods delivered: Within 7 days after the delivery


 


8. Random spare, number and supply method of accessories    None


 


9. Payment method and period: Within 30 days after the delivery and the invoice being recognized.


 


10. If guaranty is needed, the guaranty agreement is also needed as appendix    None


 


11. Liability for breach of contract: It shall be settled according to the contract law of PRC


 


12. The mechanism of dispute settlement:  It shall be settled through negotiation.


 


13. Other agreed matters:


 


  a. Quality Assurance Documents


 


  b. The price is subject to the market condition, and the quantity is determined by the actual number occurred. It shall inform the buyer at 7 day’s advance if there is a change in above items.


 








	
Supplier:


Company Name (Seal):


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent :


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:

	
Buyer:


Company Name:


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent:


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:







 Valid period: From January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0460

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BRANDON LEE BLACK,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 13, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 28 2022

12/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0460
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4071 

To require insurers of motor vehicles to provide coverage of bodily injuries 

in insurance policies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require insurers of motor vehicles to provide coverage 

of bodily injuries in insurance policies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRED COVERAGE OF BODILY INJURIES IN 

4 MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE POLICES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—An insurer of a motor vehicle 

6 shall provide in each motor vehicle insurance policy such 

7 insurer issues liability coverage for bodily injuries and 

8 death as described in subsection (b). 

9 (b) MINIMUM COVERAGE.—A policy referred to in 

10 subsection (a) shall include, for injuries to or death of perVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:20 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4071.IH H4071

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4071 IH

1 sons arising from an incident involving a motor vehicle or 

2 driver covered by such policy— 

3 (1) not less than $25,000 in liability coverage 

4 for injuries to or death of an individual; and 

5 (2) not less than $50,000 in total liability cov6 erage for all injuries to or deaths of persons arising 

7 from such incident. 

8 (c) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED.—The term ‘‘motor 

9 vehicle’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

10 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
State Farm Bank & Ra



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00143

- CV

Dennis OLIVARES

, Appella nt

v.

STATE FARM BANK & Rausch, Sturm, Et al., Appellee s

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 370251 Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Pending before the court is appellant’s motion to stay proceedings in the trial court. Appellee did not file a response to appellant’s motion.

The clerk’s record is not due to be filed in this appeal until June 2, 2014; however, based on the statements made in appellant’s motion, this court questions whether a final judgment or appealable order has been entered in the underlying cause over which this court would have jurisdiction. In appellant’s notice of appeal, he states the appeal is from two interlocutory orders, one of which has not been signed; however, appellant provides no detail explaining the basis on which this court would have jurisdi ction over the interlocutory orders. Appellant attaches an order granting leave to file late discovery to his docketing statement; however, an interlocutory appeal from such an order is not authorized by statute. See Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu

, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (holding appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders only if statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing no later than fifteen days from t he date of this order why this appeal should not be dis missed for lack of jurisdiction. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
ex103.htm


Exhibit 10.03








Personal Wireless Communication for Industry and Leisure, Worldwide!






















Mr. George Bickerstaff


Stamford, CT                                                                                                                           August 2, 2007












Dear Mr. Bickerstaff:







With this letter, Energy Telecom, Inc, for the investment sum of $50,000.00, agrees to issue to you five million (5,000,000) restricted (SEC rule 144) shares of common stock in the company.







Energy Telecom, Inc. agrees that the percent of the Company’s common stock issued (as of the date of this letter 107,118,252 shares) represented by the 5,000,000 shares shall remain unchanged until such time as the Company registers its common stock through the filing of  a Registration Statement, employing Form S-8, as detailed in Rule 428, The Securities Act of 1933.   The number of shares required to maintain the correct percentage shall be adjusted quarterly.







Thank you for your investment.












Sincerely,







/s/ TOM RICKARDS


Tom Rickards, president












 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Energy Telecom, Inc.


Mailing address: 1602 Alton Rd., #12, Miami Beach, FL 33139


Offices: (305) 865-9885, corporate@energytele.com, www.energytele.com
exhibit101.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE

    LOWE’S
COMPANIES

    EMPLOYEE
STOCK PURCHASE PLAN –

    STOCK
OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE

    


    This Amendment No. 1 is made as of the
30th day of April, 2010, by Lowe's Companies, Inc., a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina (the
“Company”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Lowe's Companies Employee
Stock Purchase Plan – Stock Options For Everyone (the “Plan”).

    


    W
I T N E S S E T H:

    


    WHEREAS, the Company maintains the
Plan; and

    


    WHEREAS, the Committee desires,
pursuant to that authority granted to the Board under Article XIII of the Plan
and delegated to the Committee by the Board, to amend the Plan, effective as of
May 1, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), to revise the enrollment period to better
coincide with administrative practice.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, the SOFE Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of the Effective Date hereof, as follows:

    


    1. Section
1.15 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted
therefore:

    “1.15           Enrollment
Period.

    


    Enrollment
Period means a period of not less than fourteen (14) calendar days, identified
by the Administrator or its designee and disclosed to Eligible Employees prior
to the beginning of the Enrollment Period, during (a) the month of May in the
case of the Offering Period beginning on June 1 and (b) the month of November in
the case of the Offering Period beginning on December 1.” 

    


    2. Except as
specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as
prior to this Amendment No. 1.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan as of
the Effective Date.

     

    LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.

    


    By:    /s/Marshall A.
Croom

             Marshall
A. Croom

    Title: SVP & Chief Risk Officer,
Chairman, Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc.