alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George GARIBAY, AKA Scooby, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50098

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed January 24, 2017

Helen H. Hong, Fred Sheppard, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael L. Crowley, Attorney, Crowley Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

We reject George Garibay’s contention that attempted murder under California law is not a “crime of violence” for the purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines’ career offender provision. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2015). The commentary to the “crime of violence” definition in § 4B1.2 lists attempted murder among the enumerated offenses that qualify as crimes of violence.

The kill zone theory does not render attempted murder under California law broader than the generic form of the offense. The elements of both the California and the generic form of attempted murder include a specific intent to kill. *See Braxton v. United States,*500 U.S. 344, 351 n.*, 111 S.Ct. 1854, 114 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); *People v. Stone,*46 Cal.4th 131, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 362, 205 P.3d 272, 275 (2009); *cf. United States v. Albino-Loe,*747 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). The kill zone theory does not allow for an attempted murder conviction in the absence of that mental state requirement. Rather, it merely explains that when a defendant chooses a method of killing That creates a zone of fatal danger, the jury may infer that the defendant intended to kill an alleged victim in that zone. *Stone,*92 Cal.Rptr.3d 362, 205 *753P.3d at 276-78. Garibay has failed to identify a single jurisdiction rejecting this inference or an application of California’s kill zone theory that criminalized conduct as attempted murder that most jurisdictions would not.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Keita JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  MARCH 31,
                                                            --------------------
                                                              2000        1999
                                                            --------    --------
Income before income taxes                                  $ 18,128    $ 82,772
Add fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                           189,082     131,183
  One-third rentals                                            1,763       1,111
                                                            --------    --------
    Total fixed charges                                      190,845     132,294
                                                            --------    --------
Income as adjusted                                          $208,973    $215,066
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges                                1.09        1.63
                                                            ========    ========

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis                $  1,581    $  1,581
Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends           $192,426    $133,875
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends                                           $   1.09    $   1.61
                                                            ========    ========
<PAGE>
                                       
                             TERMINATION AGREEMENT

NORTHGLENN PARTNERS, L.P. ("Seller") and EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC. 
("Buyer"), are parties to that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of 
Real Property in Northglenn, Colorado, dated September 3, 1996 and September 
5, 1996, as amended on November 13, 1996, December 17, 1996 and March 31, 
1997 (the "Agreement"). A condition of the Agreement is the timely 
acquisition of the Northglenn Mall Developer Tract by the NURA has failed to 
complete such acquisition and, accordingly, Buyer and Seller hereby agree 
that the Agreement is terminated as of the date hereof, that neither party 
shall have any further or continuing obligations, duties or liabilities to the 
other, and that Chicago Title of Colorado, Inc. (the "Escrow Agent") shall 
return Buyer's $100,000 earnest money deposit to it immediately, together 
with all accrued interest thereon.

Seller also hereby acknowledges that Buyer still has an interest in acquiring 
the subject property and is free to do so with any person and upon any such 
terms that Buyer is able to negotiate without incurring any liability to 
Seller and that Seller shall not make any claim against Buyer for pursuing 
acquisition of the property from someone other than Seller.

Dated this 18th day of July, 1997.

EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC.

By: /s/ George Smith
    --------------------
        George Smith
Its:    Vice President


NORTHGLENN PARTNERS, L.P.

By:  HRBF NORTHGLENN NO. 3, L.P.,
Its: General Partner

     By:  /s/ Illegible
          -----------------
     Its: V.P.
          -----------------
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23




                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-17030) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan; in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-68474, No. 33-24122, No. 33-30716 and No.
333-17259) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan; in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59861) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan; in
the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-68476 and No. 333-71971)
pertaining to the Stock Option Plan for Nonemployee Directors; in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-50162) pertaining to the 2000 Stock
Option Plan; in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-50160) pertaining
to the 1999 Nonemployee Director Stock Plan; and in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-3 No. 33-87948, No. 333-45803, No. 333-69317, No. 333-91441 and No.
333-38412, and Form S-4 No. 33-06901) and in the related Prospectuses of Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2001 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                          Ernst & Young LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 21, 2001
#### Marc A. Konsistorum et al., Appellants, v Style Management Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 645]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs ap*553peal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonina, J.), dated December 5, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability because issues of fact exist as to whether the taxicab driven by the defendant Aziz Urrehman actually struck the plaintiff Marc A. Konsistorum *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W ashington 98057 - 3356

April 29 , 2013 Mr. Oscar Hernandez Lead Certification Engineer LiveTV 8900 Hanger Boulevard Orlando, FL 32827 Dear Mr . Hernandez : We received your April 16 , 2013 petition for exemption from the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.571(e)(1), for Boeing Mo del 7 5 7 airplanes. The exemption, if granted, would allow installation of Ka Band radomes on Boeing Model 7 5 7 airplanes that do not meet FAA bird- strike - damage tolerance requirements. This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management S ystem (FDMS), has be en given Docket No. FAA - 2013 - 03 72 . We are reviewing your request and will contact you if we need additional information. I f you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Todd Martin, ANM - 115 at 425 - 227 - 1178 or e -mail Todd.Martin @faa.gov. Sincerel y,

Michael Menkin Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Robert Sprague,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18cv165

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

Universal Transportation Systems LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement 

Agreement and Sanctions. (Doc. 101). In light of the Stipulation of Judgment entered

by the Court (Doc. 103), Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 101) is hereby DENIED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Michael R. Barrett 

JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

Case: 1:18-cv-00165-MRB Doc #: 105 Filed: 03/04/24 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 837
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**








We
      have
      issued our reports dated July 13, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial
      statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
      over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of America’s Car-Mart,
      Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30,
      2007.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
      reports in the Registration Statements of America’s Car-Mart, Inc. and
      subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-59519, 33-59527, 33-41960, 33-22590,
      33-71090, 333-38475, 333-129727, 333-139269, and 333-139270).








/s/
      Grant
      Thornton LLP





Tulsa,
      Oklahoma


July
      13,
      2007
Patrick MAXWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018

Mary E. Fitzgibbons, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Maxwell appeals the summary denial of Ground Two of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record does not conclusively refute Maxwell's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent act jury instruction, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Two and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000)

*1207("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANDREY SHUKLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-CR-109

Judge Timothy S. Black

BILL OF PARTICULARS

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a), particularly alleges that the following property is 

subject to forfeiture on the basis of the forfeiture allegation set forth in the Indictment filed in the 

above-styled criminal case: real property known and numbered as 3370 Hidden Bay Drive #814, 

Aventura, Florida 33180 with all appurtenances, attachments and improvements attached thereto, 

legally described as:

Condominium Unit No. 814, of 100 Hidden Bay Condominium, a Condominium 

according to the Declaration thereof, as recorded in Official Records Book 19034, at 

Page 4250, as amended, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

More commonly known as: 3370 Hidden Bay Drive #814, Aventura, Florida 33180

Record Owner: Independent Van Lines, LLC

Parcel Id: 2822030573180

CFN: 20150286898 Book 29603 Pages 3834 and 3835 

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID M. DEVILLERS

United States Attorney

/s/ Megan Gaffney

MATTHEW C. SINGER (IL 6297632)

MEGAN GAFFNEY (NY 4849220)

Assistant United States Attorneys

221 E. Fourth Street, Suite 400

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Matthew.singer@usdoj.gov

Megan.gaffney@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 133 Filed: 12/30/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 683
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed with the Court’s CM/ECF System this 30th 

day of December 2019, which provides electronic notice to all parties.

/s/Megan Gaffney

MEGAN GAFFNEY (NY 4849220)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 133 Filed: 12/30/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 684
Calvin L. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.18



RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
(For use with [Sign-On]/[Make-Whole] Awards)




Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) confirms that, on [grant date] (the “Grant Date”), it granted you, [name], [number] Restricted Stock Units. 


Your Restricted Stock Units are subject to the terms and conditions of the Brighthouse Financial, Inc. 2017 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2017 Plan”) and this Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (this “Agreement”), which includes the Award Agreement Supplement (the “Supplement”). Please note that the Supplement includes terms for forfeiture of your Restricted Stock Units under certain circumstances.  


These are the “Standard Terms” referenced in the Supplement and will apply to your Restricted Stock Units except in so far as Supplement Sections S-1 (“Change of Status”), S-2 (“Change of Control”), or S-14 (“Restrictive Covenants”) apply.  If Shares are paid to you, you will receive evidence of ownership of those Shares.


[The Period of Restriction for your Restricted Stock Units will begin on the Grant Date and end on [●].] 


Restricted Stock Units will be due and payable, net of any necessary tax withholding, in the form of Shares after the conclusion of the Period of Restriction, at the time specified in Supplement Section S-7 (“Timing of Payment”).  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has caused this Agreement to be offered to you, and you have accepted this Agreement by the electronic means made available to you.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MOTNHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          13,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,377)
<INVENTORY>                                     75,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,280
<PP&E>                                         899,902
<DEPRECIATION>                               (342,285)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 742,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,176
<BONDS>                                        233,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,676
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   742,134
<SALES>                                        372,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               372,795
<CGS>                                          365,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,356)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,618
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (102,974)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (102,974)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.82)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, Roland C. Smith,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Office Depot, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ ROLAND C. SMITH
|Name:               |  | Roland C. Smith        
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | April 3, 2015
FAA Record of Conversation

David Parsons

– DOI Regarding Petition for Exemption to 133.45(e)(1) Discussed with Mr. Parsons the ty pes of operation s DOI conducts and contracts using FAA certificated operators

. Discussed the status of persons DOI carries with relation to section 133.35 during “short haul” operations and the purposes for that carriage. Discussed what t ype of helicopters DOI uses, and requested clarification in the petition on which are single vs. multi

- engine. Discussed level of relief DO I is requesting to section 133.45(e)(1), as the request would differ for single vs. multi

- engine helicopters. Invited Mr. Parsons to submit any additional information he desired on behalf of DOI to support their petition with respect to an equal level of safety and the public interst.
t' •'



# u.s.**DEPARTMENTOFT~ANSPORTATIO~ECEtv··** e·_-_

# 0 --- Office of Hearmgs 

# n _ .- -. .. Washington, D. C. 

# SEP 

# 122013

The Liberty Foundation, Inc. 

### FAA DOCKET NO. 2012-0477 (EIR 2011-GL-03-0070)

(Civil PenaltyAction) 

# H,EARING**DOCK~f**

Han. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge

....**~J**

RESPONDENT'SANSWER TO AMENDMENTTO COMPLAINT --·..J 

### Respondent, The Liberty Foundation (TLF), 

### herewith answers the Amendment To Complaint, as follows: 7a Denied. 7b Denied. 16a Denied 16b Denied Sa Denied Sb Denied Sc Denied 18 Denied. There was no "finding" of a violation of sections 43.9(a), 43.9(d), 43.13(a), or 43.13(b). Rather, these were allegations against Mr. Schneider that were resolved by settlement. There was no adjudication of these issues. Respondent denies it violated sections 43.5(a), 43.9(a), 43.13(a), 43.13(b) or any other sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 7300 North Kendall Drive. Suite 380, Miami,Fl 33156 T (3051670·1222 F: (305) 400-0685 EMAIL S.L!..li.\IllllQl.Q.SJEM:A1!2ATUJ.EI

### Any allegations not specifically admitted herein, are denied.
Respectfully submitted, STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

### 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 

### 380 Miami, FL 

### 33156 Tel: 

### (305) 670-1222 Fax: 

### {305) 670-7065 Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net 

### J

# ~ oftf}J\li 

# iL**By:.fl~wtvv !{.~**  StuartA. Goldstein Attorney for Respondent

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P. A. 7300 North Kendall Olive, Suite 380, MIAMI. FL 33156 T· (305) 670·1222 F: (305) 670·7065 EMAIL:**Sll.!A~illlli!'.6~.** 2q·· .....

# . . 

# .
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been served on this 23rd day of August, 2013, as setforth below: Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration P. 

### 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 By Facsimile (404) 305-5223 and regular U. S. Mail and that an original and one copy was served upon: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20591 and that a copy was served upon: Honorable J. E. Sullivan Office of Hearings, M-20 U. S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S. E. (E11-310) Washington, D. C. 20590 By Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 and regular U. S. Mail t)

# By:.lx;stflft.J/Hi~ StuartA. Goldstein

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN. P A 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380, MIAMI, FL 33156 T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305)670-7065 EMAIL·SI\.1..1\.Bl"-Ql.Q.SJ:o.JN£'1\J!iiAU.£1[;.1