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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

SEASON HYMAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30130

D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00017-EJL-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 8, 2014** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: ALARCÓN, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Season Hymas pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft

from a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). She appeals the

district court’s order imposing restitution in the amount of $100,272.72. 

FILED

JUL 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 575 n.6

(9th Cir. 2002), we affirm the district court’s order.

Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, courts

are directed to order restitution “in the full amount of each victim’s losses.” 18

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). When more than one defendant has contributed to the

loss, courts have discretion to either “make each defendant liable for payment of

the full amount [or] apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of

contribution to the victim’s loss.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h). 

The district court properly exercised its discretion when it declined

Defendant’s request to apportion restitution to reflect her low degree of culpability

and responsibility for the victim’s loss. The court was aware that it had such

discretion, but nonetheless found Defendant blameworthy with respect to the

offense for which she was charged. The reason the district court gave is also

consistent with the purposes that restitution is designed to serve. See United States

v. Green, 722 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.) (noting that the purpose of restitution is

“not to punish the defendant, but to make the victim whole again” (internal

quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 658 (2013). Even if the court

could have apportioned restitution in light of the fact that her codefendant’s

2
sentence had already been imposed, its decision not to do so was properly within

its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit 32(ii)

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q of American Community Bancshares, Inc.
(the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                            
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                                
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

   
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1a

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 
33-09053 of Ascent Entertainment Group, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated 
February 14, 1996 (except as to the second, third and fourth paragraphs of 
Note 15, as to which the date is March 28, 1996, and Note 16, as to which the 
date is February 19, 1997), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10K/A of 
Ascent Entertainment Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1995.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado

February 19, 1997
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2011 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related
interpretations; and
 (b)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ Robert M. Friedland

Robert M. FriedlandChief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    November 9, 2011
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended and Section 107.1900 of the SBA Rules and Regulations, SBA by this notice declares null and void the license to function as a small business investment company under Small Business Investment Company License No.01/01-0365 issued to Citizens Ventures, Inc.

United States Small Business Administration.

Dated: April 15, 2015.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2015-09099 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Linda C. Reddick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|Date: May 10, 2007 | Linda C. Reddick Interim Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------------

---
14315

#### WIGGINS & SONS, INC., v. FORD MOTOR CO.

(186 S. E., 272)

Before Shipp, J., Hampton,

January, 1935.

*179*Messrs. George Warren*and *Thos. M. Boulware,*for appellant,

*180*Messrs. Cansler & Cansler*and. *Robinson &*Robinson, for respondent,

June 15, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler.

This action and another, based on an alleged breach of contract, were commenced by the service of the summons and complaint on one Edward Eivesey, a traveling- representative of the Ford Motor Company. The defendant, upon due notice, made special appearance in both cases for the purpose of moving the Court to set aside the service on two grounds: (1) That the company was not doing business in South Carolina; and (2) that the person served was not the agent or representative of the defendant. The matter was heard by his Honor, Judge Shipp, on certain documentary *181evidence and the testimony of several witnesses taken before him; and in a full and well-considered decree, filed March 29, 1935, the Court sustained the motion on both grounds, and ordered that the service of process in the cases be set aside. From the order made this appeal is taken.

We have repeatedly held that findings in a law case are not subject to review by this Court, unless absolutely unsupported by evidence. In *Lipe v. Railway Company,*123 S. C., 515, 116 S. E., 101, 30 A. L. R., 248, it was said: “A conclusion as to either of the points indicated (similar to the questions presented here), necessarily involves the determination of a question of mixed law and fact, but the result of such determination by the Circuit Judge is essentially a finding of fact which this Court has no power to review, unless wholly unsupported by evidence or manifestly influenced or controlled by error of law.” See, also, *McSwain v. Grain & Provision Co.,*93 S. C., 103, 76 S. E., 117, Ann. Cas., 1914-D, 981; *State ex rel. Kerns v. Life Insurance Co.,*168 S. C., 516, 167 S. E., 833; *State of South Carolina v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.,*172 S. C., 415, 174 S. E., 385; *Dyar v. Georgia Power Co.,*173 S. C., 527, 176 S. E., 711.

We have examined with care the record before us; and we cannot say that the findings of Judge Shipp are entirely without evidence to support them or that they are attributable, as contended by the appellant, to an erroneous conception or application of the law. On the contrary, his conclusions find ample support in the testimony, and we approve the result reached.

The Circuit decree, therefore, which will be reported, is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham, Baker and Fish-burne concur.
INDIANA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (INARNG) DRINKING WATER 

PFAS SNAPSHOT

The Army National Guard is committed to ensuring quality drinking water is provided to its 

Soldiers, and civilians. Proactive sampling is performed by the Army National Guard on its

drinking water systems, as well as, coordination with other purveyors to ensure perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) remains below the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) lifetime health advisory (HA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 

EPA HA is not an enforceable or a regulatory standard, and represents a concentration in 

drinking water that is not expected to produce adverse health effects if the water is consumed 

over a lifetime.

Drinking Water Status: Finished drinking water, which is the treated water people drink at 

LaPorte Armory, does not contain PFOS/PFOA above the EPA HA. Additionally, Army National 

Guard-provided drinking water complies with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), a federal law designed to protect the quality of drinking water supplied to the American 

public. The Army National Guard will continue to monitor on-base drinking water to ensure the 

EPA HA or a properly promulgated state drinking water standard is not exceeded.

Test Date: March 2020

PFOA + PFOS Results: Below the laboratory’s ability to detect

Future Testing Event: March 2023

Type of Drinking Water System: Army National Guard-owned

For Questions Contact: Indiana National Guard State Public Affairs Office

Office Phone Number: 317-247-3105

Office E-mail Address: ng.in.inarng.list.pao@mail.mil

Water Quality Reports: A water quality report is not required for this location
From: "Cronmiller, Rae E." <rae.cronmiller@nreca.coop>

To: Lanelle W iggins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Rostker, David J." <David.Rostker@sba.gov>, RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

"Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "jeutizi@smeci.net" <jeutizi@smeci.net>, "W EPENROD@SUNFLOW ER.NET" <W EPENROD@SUNFLO WE R.NET>, "Ihopkins@sipower.org" <Ihopkins@sipower.org>, mike thatcher <mike.thatcher@cbpower.coop>, "W ehrum, Wi lliam L." <wwehrum@hunton.com>, " Theresa Pugh" <TPugh@publicpower.org> Date: 07/27 /2011 03:28 PM Subject: FW : NRECA comments to SER panel on Clean Air Act GHG NSPS and accompanying graphs

referenced in comments 

### Lanelle, attached are NRECA’s comments on the SER GHG NSPS panel deliberations. The excel documents are referenced in our c omments in PDF format. Regards. 

## Confidentiality

Notice: This e

- mail message, including an y attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, cop y, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. I f you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e - mail and destroy

all copies of the original message.

San Miguel 1 - Monthly Operations - 2007 to March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xlsx

Marion - Monthly Operations - 2007 - March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xlsx

Fort Dodge - Monthly Operations - 2007 to March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xls

Genoa 3 - Monthly Operations - 2007 - March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xls

Chamois - Monthly Operations - 2007 - March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xlsx

S2 - Monthly Operations - 2007 - March 2011 - 7.5.2011.xlsx

NRECA GHG NSPS SBREFA comments.pdf
# o w 

# i^^^ s

-••• > I;;r ; 

# mm n www.beyondandback.co m

Leisure : Corporate : 321-725-972 0

321-725-972 3 FAX : 321-951-201 7

Marc h 11 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d Secretary Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerseyAvenue , S E Washington , D.C

. 

### 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor to fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Los Angele s Internationa l Airpor tt o Toky o Internationa l Airpor ta tHaneda

. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k Ope n Skie s agreemen twit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s larges t financia l an d commerc e centers

. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi c market

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Los Angele s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s

40 1 Ocea n Avenu e J " Suit e 10 1 \ Melbourn e Beach , F L3295 1Bot h th e Ne wYor k an d Lo s Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan teconomi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees

. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a reality

. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques t fo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yan d Lo s Angele s t o Haneda ! Sincerely ,

Pi a Hanlon-Olse n Presiden t Beyon d an d Bac k

Trave l
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-109188 of
Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2003, appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002
and to the references to us under
the heading Experts in the Prospectus and the Sales Agreement
Prospectus, which are part of this Registration Statement.

| | /s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP     
| | -----------------------------
| |                              
| | Dallas, TexasOctober 27, 2003
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 Annual Report of
Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P.
Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due
inquiry, I believe 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 Partnership and Star Gas
Finance Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Star Gas Partners, L.P. and will be retained by Star Gas Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                       |  |                                                                                                         
|---------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY By: KESTREL HEAT, LLC (General Partner)
|                 |  |  | 
|December 9, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                                                                                      |  | /s/ Daniel P. Donovan
|                 |  |  |  |                                                                                          |  |                       |  | Daniel P. Donovan President and Chief Executive Officer Star Gas Partners,
L.P. Star Gas Finance Company
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Ronald S. Walsh, Jr., Defendant.

County Court, Monroe County,

April 22, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Peter K. Skivington*for defendant. *Howard R. Relin, District Attorney (Casey E. Callanan*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

David D. Egan, J.

The defendant moved for an order pursuant to CPL 255.20 (3) for renewal and granting of a motion to suppress statements (which had been denied after a full County Court hearing) on the grounds that he thereafter was successful at a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 hearing to determine whether or not his license and/or driving privileges should be suspended or revoked for refusal to submit to a chemical test for *183the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood or breath. The defendant seeks to have County Court bound by the decision of the Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The County Court hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress statements was completed on December 9, 1987 on which date the motion was denied. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing took place thereafter on December 17,1987 and the police officer refused to testify on instructions from the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the County Court criminal case. The Assistant District Attorney was not present at the DMV hearing. The defense had a full opportunity to litigate the issue in County Court and his motion to renew is denied. To rule otherwise would encourage forum shopping.

Even if the court allowed renewal of the defense motion, the County Court, in criminal proceedings, is not subject to collateral estoppel by decisions resulting from section 1194 hearings of the Department of Motor Vehicles. *(People v Riola,*137 Misc 2d 616 [Dist Ct, Nassau County 1987]; *see, People v Fagan,*66 NY2d 815 [1985], *affg*104 AD2d 252 [4th Dept 1984].) The court in *Fagan*refused to apply collateral estoppel where there was dismissal at the conclusion of a final parole revocation hearing of charges against the defendant. Such dismissal was held not to bar a later prosecution of criminal charges, in County Court, based on the same a'cts. In *Fagan*the court said, "Collateral estoppel is a flexible doctrine, not to be applied automatically just because its formal prerequisites are met *(Gilberg v Barbieri,*53 NY2d 285, 292). Strong policy considerations militate against giving issues determined in prior litigation preclusive effect in a criminal case, and indeed we have never done so *(see, People v Plevy,*52 NY2d 58, 65, n 4). The correct determination of guilt or innocence is paramount in criminal cases *(People v Berkowitz,*50 NY2d 333, 345), and the People’s incentive to litigate in a felony prosecution would presumably be stronger than in a parole revocation proceeding *(cf. Gilberg v Barbieri, supra). ” (Supra,*at 816.) *See also, People v Bosilkofski*(134 AD2d 869 [4th Dept 1987]) where the court discussed collateral estoppel from Family Court to County Court and finding it not to apply for several reasons under the circumstances of that case.
Exhibit 10.32

ATARI, INC.
DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANTS FISCAL
YEAR 2008 ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN

Target annual bonuses are set for each eligible employee based upon a
percentage of base salary. Bonuses are calculated based on three components,
one of which relates to the U.S. Companys and/or the business units profit
and revenue results, one of which is measured against worldwide cash flow,
profit and revenue results, and in the case of production related employees,
one of which is based on the timeliness of product delivery. If Atari, Inc.s
worldwide operating profit attainment for the fiscal year is less than 80% of
the Companys plan, no bonus is required to be paid for the fiscal year;
bonuses then become discretionary. If profits and/or revenue exceed plan for
the fiscal year the bonus rate is accelerated for the incremental profits and
revenue above plan, with a maximum of 150% payout of the bonus target.