alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40364 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EDUARDO GARCIA GARCIA, also known as Eduardo Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CR-2065-1
Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appo i nted to represent Eduardo Garcia Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t h e relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . Ac c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, coun s e l i s excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 7, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40364 Document: 00512085306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

### AUSTIN-S. The total 

### rooeipta &poclftod to the aoiler Inapeotlon mnd during the 

### periodfrom June 25,1937 thm@ June S, X986 uu $88,8b9.84. 

### Thue dep cmita

l otw.lly **bo@a in**  **Septmaber 1957.** 

**“ a.**  The **total** of **nrmnte** lhed **agalnat th,**  **Bollor** Iwpwtlon **Pun& durlag**  the **tirrt** year (6-3-57 through S-S-56) **ns** #M,TM.98, lama **balanw at**  **t&t** Plato **-of** #Ut,lS&.Ob. **It is**  **ire** poosiblo to dokralne the mt of out8tmdlo( 

### oblQation8uhioh 

### mre 8ub88qwntlJ wlcl, from **this** b81anao.
"4. Ou Ao&uat 8, 1936 Oh. **Trnwru** uaa authorlzod to **trrwtu** the ma ot $~0,000.09 famm. 

### theBoilorIaspaotlon hurdto thaQononl Jtovmeo lhud. m oth8r t-rem hare bun aade.Ronorablo 900. H. Shopperd, paga S

ondlng ~10,000.00 

### 18 to be oarrled rorward 

### for the purpose **or** wfoxomaerlt 

### 0r the Aot.
4. Any amount rwaining la th0 rwd in OX0088 of #10,000.00 at the 01080 of any fl8oel year lftu lose *hall rout to tha oeneral RsvMW rune 

### or th8 state 

### or ~0x68. .Awording to the lnfornvtion you hare furnI8h.d 

### UI, thewhole 

### of the $19,97S.bZ

### dl&araod fromthe 

### )RO,OOO O8niral Rerenuo 

### Appropriation rhould

### hwa beenrefiaeed. Youwill note, homer, that 

### whiletha bgl8latoxw proridl d for tha r*plao-t of 8uah upandltcme8 it ax80 protldad~

that oaly too8 oelloakd during the fimt year'8 opention of the Act 8hould be available 

### for 8uoh u8a. ?ez! 

### thisroamon the baUnoo In tha Bollor Inspaotlon Fund a8 0r ***uguat** 51, 

### iota,the oneor tat3rim il8wi **par,** l8 **unimportant** 

### l

xoept

that it **mbnoo8** and Inolude8 the balanw on hand a8 of June 8, 1938, the end of.th8 flr8t 

### 7ur’a o~ntlon of the 

### Aot.

The balaneo on hand In tb SoIlor Ia8paatIon Fund on am@ s, 19JB, ra‘ $lle,lS4.86, Mb the who10 of thl‘ 

### ‘mount **8hoaldhwe beontran8?emdtotho**  wnerall?eveauo mnd.oa A8@8t 8 1938, 

### ~io,~&o Of thi8 baMO@ -8 80 tMM?UMd, loa~IagJ6~lS4.86 In the go~orIru~otlonPIlndrhloh*horrlb &ro km 

### l

ppllodto tha ciumnl 

### Rorenqa ApproprIatl&n, fnbothyourl~ttero? Septrnkr8 andthato? Sogtwtmr Zy youpolnt~~tthatth~ balum 

### lathe **nooiler** 

### In8pootlon

ma **at** tha **ol.00~** of the **flmal** *ar 

### l **ndbng** August 8, 19S8, n8 #4,990.61 

### au4 **it** appear8 **thud** ham **nwor** bun a lasrrer amotmt la this lhnd than 

### theballaaoo 

### l **ppearla&** 

### on **Au&&et 8l.**  **1938.**

**It** 18 the opinion of thIa.lMpartaont thut the 891~ 

### 0r $&lSL$b, 1088 the total amouut of all rasrauta 

### *loR hwe **booa** 

### paidand 

### wen 188tmd 

### iOrol~iu arlelng prierto June S, lQSS, #hould **be tranafomd**  **fmm** the **Boiler IM~OO**  

### tionBin&l

to the **Gweral R6TMw**  **Fund** in 

### l **eoordenoe with**  the 

### MqU.hUWk e? 

### SeOtiOI8 18 Of EOtk80Sill SS8, AOt8 Of thO 

### 46thLo(Li8latux-o.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Michael D. Capellas, the Chief
Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Capellas                    
|                      |  |  |  | Michael D. Capellas Chief Executive
Officer
Jonathan HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3622

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30047

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2017 * Portland, Oregon

Filed March 17, 2017

*577Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elizabeth Gillingham Daily, Attorney, Lisa C. Hay, Federal Public Defender, FPDOR—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *577*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Ernest Johnson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for modification of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *United States v. Spears,*824 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

In 1999, judgment was entered against Johnson on charges of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) *&*(d) (Count 1); unlawful possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 2); and felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 3). Johnson was sentenced to 300 months on Counts 1 and 3, to run concurrently. The district court imposed a mandatory 60-month consecutive sentence on the section 924(c) conviction (Count 2), for a total imprisonment term of 360 months.

Johnson contends that the district court erred by rejecting his argument that the enhancement of his sentence, once for armed bank robbery, and again for possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, constituted impermissible “double counting” in contravention of retroactive Guideline Amendment 599 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Johnson’s contention fails because the district court properly concluded that Amendment 599 is inapplicable to the guideline under which Johnson was sentenced as an armed career criminal, U.S.S.G.§ 4B1.4. Johnson does not challenge his qualification as an armed career criminal and a career offender. Amendment 599 modified a separate guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, and clarified the circumstances under which a court may enhance a sentence when the defendant also has a § 924(c) firearms offense. *See*U.S.S.G. Suppl. to App. C, Amend. 599, 69-70 (2000); *see also United States v. Archdale,*229 F.3d 861, 869 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “the Sentencing Commission plainly understands the concept of double counting and expressly forbids it where it is not intended” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Andre Christopher BERNARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Grant.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LIANA PESHKEPIA-C A DENA; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. SUNTR UST B ANK; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55012 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-07322-R GK-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Lia na Pe shke pia -C a de na , Nina La ure n M unde n , a

nd C hris C a de na a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs dism issing the i r a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la im s in c onne c tion with a fore c losure . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo a dism issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

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

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), He bbe v . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd for a n a buse of disc re tion a

dism issa l for fa i lure to c om p ly with loc a l rule s, Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th C ir. 1995). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt dismisse d pla intiffs’ c la im s a ga inst SunTrust B ank a nd U.S. B ank, N.A. be c a

use pla intiffs fa ile d

to file a tim e ly

opposition to the ir m otion to dismiss. Se e C .D. C a l. R . 7-12 (“ The fa ilure to file any re quire d doc um e nt, or the fa ilure to file it within the de a dline , m ay

be de e m e d

c onse nt to thegranting or de nia l of the m otion . . . .” ). In the ir ope n ing brie f, pla intiffs fa il to a d dre ss how the d istric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion in dism issing the ir c la i m s for fa i lure to c om ply with theloc a l rule s. Sim ila rly , pla intiffs do not addre ss why the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismi ssing the ir c la im s a ga inst theC ity of Downe y

for fa ilure to sta te a c la im . Ac c ordingly , pla intiffs ha ve wa ive d the ir a

ppe a l of the dism issa l orde rs. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ On a ppe a l, argum e nts not ra ise d by a pa rty in its opening brie f are de e m e d wa i ve d.” ); se e also Inde p. Tow e rs of W

ash. v . W ashington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C i r. 2003) (“ W e re vie w only

issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c i fic a lly

and distinc tly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 5 5 0 1 2 2
Exhibit








CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION
SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN
As Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2015
SEVENTH INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT
Recitals:
		
	1.
	Curtiss-Wright Corporation (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Curtiss Wright Corporation Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”) and has caused the Plan to be amended and restated in its entirety effective as of January 1, 2015.


		
	2.
	Subsequent to the most recent amendment and restatement of the Plan, the Company has decided to amend the Plan to revise the definition of Disability.


		
	3.
	Section 12.01(a) of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time.


		
	4.
	Section 12.01(b) authorizes the Administrative Committee to adopt Plan amendments on behalf of the Company under certain circumstances.


		
	5.
	Certain of the Plan amendments described herein shall be subject to approval by the Board of Directors.




Amendments to the Plan:
For the reasons set forth in the Recitals to this Instrument of Amendment, the CWC and EMD Components of the Plan are hereby amended in the following respects:
CWC Component
Effective April 2, 2018, Section 1.20 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:


1.20 “Disability” means total and permanent disability that renders a Member eligible to receive disability benefits under the long-term disability plan of the Employer.


Except to the extent amended by this Instrument of Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed on this      day of                   , 2018.


	
		
	 
	Curtiss-Wright Corporation

	 
	Administrative Committee

	 
	 

	By:
	 

	 
	Paul J. Ferdenzi
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rajat Rai, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Option Care, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai           |   |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Rajat Rai               |   |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6025 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6025

    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
    eliminate the repatriation loan program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2023

 Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Mr. McGovern) introduced the following 
                                  bill

                            October 25, 2023

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
    eliminate the repatriation loan program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Leave No Americans Behind Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPATRIATION LOANS BY DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

    Section 4 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 
U.S.C. 2671) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii), by striking ``, on a 
        reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable, with such 
        reimbursements to be credited to the applicable Department of 
        State appropriation and to remain available until expended, 
        except that no reimbursement under this clause shall be paid 
        that is greater than the amount the person evacuated would have 
        been charged for a reasonable commercial air fare immediately 
        prior to the events giving rise to the evacuation''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (d).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000883474
<NAME>                          Enex Oil & Gas Income Program VI - Sr 1, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         5415
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41172
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46587
<PP&E>                                         1148605
<DEPRECIATION>                                 532550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 683523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          62076
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     580971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   683523
<SALES>                                        281965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281965
<CGS>                                          144291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               313698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (178380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                           HORWATH ORENSTEIN LLP
                                                           Chartered Accountants
                                               A MEMBER OF HORWATH INTERNATIONAL

                                                       595 Bay Street, Suite 300
                                                                 Toronto, Canada
                                                                         M5G 2C2

                                                                  (416) 596 1711
                                                              (416) 596 7894 Fax
                                                                     www.hto.com

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the inclusion of our audit of the consolidated audited financial
statements of Yak Communications (USA) Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002
and 2001 as part of this Form 10-KSB.

/s/ Horwath Orenstein LLP

Horwath Orenstein LLP
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario


February 24, 2003
From: "Rufa, Nathan P." <Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com> To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Parent, Jordan J." <Jordan.Parent@alcoa.com> Date: 01/14/2011 02:53 PM Subject: PMACT Residual Risk Plant Information Update

Rochelle,

Please see the attached PMACT Residual Risk updated files for Alcoa Massena Operations and Reynolds Metals Co.

Each plant has been updated/revised with: Fence Lines (KMZ files) Actual HAP emissions (Category HAP’s spreadsheet) Release Point Parameters such as stack height, diameter, latitude/longitude, etc. (Release Point spreadsheet)

Please let us know if you need anything else. Thank you.

Nathan Rufa Senior Environmental Engineer Alcoa Primary Metals Massena Operations Park Avenue East / PO Box 150 Massena, NY 13662 Tel: 315-764-4285 Fax: 315-764-4460 nathan.rufa@alcoa.com

(See attached file: Alcoa CategoryHAPs_NEI39458 Final 1-6- 11.xls)(See attached file: Alcoa Massena West Fenceline 12-17- 10.kmz)(See attached file: Reynolds Metals Co. ReleasePoint_NEI46970 Final 1-6- 11.xls)(See attached file: Reynolds CategoryHAPs_NEI46970 Final 1-6-11.xls)(See attached file: Reynolds Massena Fenceline 12-17-10.kmz)

Page 1