alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth J. BAILEY, for himself and as executor of the Estate of Linda Jean Weeks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION BANK RETIREMENT PLAN; Employee Deferred Compensation and Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-55734

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*937Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Kenneth J. Bailey, Pro Se

Pavneet Singh Uppal, Esquire, Attorney, Fisher *&*Phillips LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth J. Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for surviving domestic partner benefits and breach of fiduciary duty. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. *Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc.,*196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). Where an ERISA-governed plan grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, we review for an abuse of discretion the administrator’s interpretation of the plan, and de novo the district court’s application of this standard. *Tapley v. Locals 302 & 612 of the Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs Constr. Indus. Ret. Plan,*728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bailey’s claim for surviving domestic partner benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) because Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the plan administrator’s denial of benefits was an abuse of its discretion. *See McDaniel v. Chevron Corp.,*203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (under abuse of discretion standard, plan administrator’s denial of benefits must be upheld “if it is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s terms and if it was made in good faith”).

Summary judgment on Bailey’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was proper because Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the failure to inform Bailey or his domestic partner of the registration requirement for surviving domestic partner benefits was a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties. *See*29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (setting forth standard of care and duties of plan fiduciary); *In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig.,*627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing non-moving party’s burden to show specific facts demonstrating existence of genuine disputes for trial).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Unassociated Document







Exhibit 10.38




CIT GROUP INC.
 11 West 42
                     nd Street
 New York, NY 10017


March 28, 2012


C. Jeffrey Knittel
 CIT Group Inc.
 11 West 42nd Street
 New York, NY 10017


Re: Extension of Term of Employment
Agreement


Dear Jeff:


This letter will confirm that the Board of Directors of CIT Group
Inc. (the “Company”) has determined to extend the “Term” of your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
with the Company dated as of May 7, 2008, as amended (your “Employment Agreement”) for one year, through December 31,
2012.


You acknowledge that neither your Employment Agreement nor this
extension letter (i) entitle you to receive any payment or benefit to the extent that it is prohibited or limited by applicable law and/or regulation,
nor (ii) constitute grounds for your resignation for “Good Reason” as defined under your Employment Agreement.


You and the Company agree that the provisions of your Employment
Agreement, as revised and extended by this letter remain in full force and the Term shall continue through December 31, 2012, without interruption.
Nothing in this letter is intended to confer any rights on any person other than you or the Company.


Please acknowledge your agreement by signing the enclosed copy of
this letter and returning it to me as soon as possible. On behalf of the Board, I thank you for your continued service with the
Company.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Robert J. Ingato


Robert J. Ingato
 Executive Vice President,
 General
Counsel


Accepted and Agreed:


/s/ C. J. Knittel




C. Jeffrey Knittel
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe RAMIREZ, III, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-10644 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

*916James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Felipe Ramirez, III, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe Ramirez, III, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fidel ANGEL-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50529

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph M. McMullen, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph M, McMullen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fidel Angel-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*591Angel-Ruiz contends that the district court clearly erred when it denied his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record reflects that the court properly compared Angel-Ruiz to his co-participants in the offense, and considered all of the factors enumerated in the commentary to the minor role Guideline. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015); *United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Angel-Ruiz’s repeated involvement in transporting drugs into the United States and money back to Mexico, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Angel-Ruiz was not a minor participant. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 522-23.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07155]

[[Page 17413]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 16 April 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 
agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by emailing staff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: March 24, 2015, in Washington, DC.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07155 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
```
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 008 -CV Co unc il C r e e k Sout h Co m m unity Or ga niz at ion , A ppe lla nt v. F rank Grubbs an d Richard Smith , Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B URNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 30,5 14 , HO NORAB LE P AUL DAVIS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Council Cree k South Community Org anization f iled a motion reque sting that its appeal be dismiss ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1( a)( 1). We gr ant the motion and dismiss t he a pp e a l.

_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 9, 2007
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: James P. Burns v. Paul M. Simon, Individually and Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

- CID

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00884

- CV

Trial court case number: 69146I

Trial court: 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County

A ppellant, James P. Burns

, filed an affidavit in the tria l court, seeking to establish indigence for costs of appeal. See T EX

. R.. C IV

. P. 20.1 . The district clerk has notified the Court

that a contest was not filed. See id. Accordingly, t he allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, and appellant is entitled to proceed on appeal wi thout advance payment of costs. See id.

The Clerk of this Court shall make an entry in this Court’s records that appellant is indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.

The clerk’s record has been filed.

The court reporter is ordered to file in this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order

and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in the appeal, or a notice that no record was

taken

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1, 34.6

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 12, 2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. German Orlando LOPEZ-AYALA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40073 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

German Orlando Lopez-Ayala, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent German Orlando Lopez-Ayala has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Ayala has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Ayala’s response. We concur with counsel’s *206assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and thé APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
TIMOTHY RANDOLPH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0815

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Timothy Randolph, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santos Alvarez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 855]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered July 8, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (four counts), and upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 40 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was *457not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The People’s case featured reliable identification testimony from multiple witnesses.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence. The record supports the court’s finding that the lineup was not unduly suggestive, in that there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting bloodstained clothing, along with crime scene photographs depicting the presence of blood, since this evidence was not inflammatory and was probative of material issues in the case concerning the nature of the victim’s injuries and defendant’s intent *(see People v Wood,*79 NY2d 958 [1992]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
Gary BRYANT, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Virginia M. Best and Johanna M. Menendez of Lopez & Best, Miami, for appellant.

Scot E. Samis and Jonathan S. Tannen of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.j., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(Unaudited)

                                         Three Months   Three Months
                                             Ended         Ended
                                          March 31,      March 31,
                                             1997           1996
                                         ------------   ------------
                                    (In thousands, except per share data)

NET INCOME                                   $387           $213 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                         ------------   ------------
PER SHARE DATA:
Net income per common equivalent share,
 primary                                     $0.05          $0.03 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                         ------------   ------------
Net income per common equivalent share,
 fully diluted                               $0.05          $0.03 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                         ------------   ------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF 
 COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
 SHARES:
Primary:
    Weighted average number of common 
    shares outstanding                       7,844          7,699 
Common equivalent shares:
    Warrants                                     2              3 
    Options                                    100            189 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                             7,946          7,890 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                         ------------   ------------
Fully diluted:
    Weighted average number of common 
    shares outstanding                       7,844          7,699 
Common equivalent shares:
    Warrants                                     2              3 
    Options                                    100            193 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                             7,946          7,895 
                                         ------------   ------------
                                         ------------   ------------
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50876 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Gustavo Villegas,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 2647

- 2

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
Gustavo Villegas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine. The district court sentenced Villegas to 70 months of imprisonment and a three

- year term of supervised release. Villegas argues that the district court erre d in adopting the cash

- to

-

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 12, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50876 Document: 00516317057 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2022No. 21

- 50876

2 drugs conversion used in the presentence report ( PSR )

. The district court’s drug quantity calculation is a factual determination reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Betancourt , 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court may consider any information that has a s ufficient indicia of reliability

. Id. at 247. On appeal, Villegas argues that the case agent’s information that the defendants were selling bags containing 0.5 grams of cocaine for $20 was
unsubstantiated. Villegas has not produced any evidence outside of the PSR to challenge information in the PSR. T he challenged information came from

a case agent . The assertion that the case agent conducted surveillance and made controlled drug buys is substantiated by the warrant application. See United States v. Trujillo , 502 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2007)

. Villegas’s arguments present a factual dispute between the specific statement of the case agent, supported by th e probable cause affidavit, and the general statement of his codefendant regarding cocaine prices. We may not reweigh the competing evidence. See United States v. Rodriguez , 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Nothing that Villegas has presented supports a definite finding that the district court made a mistake in determining drug quantity by adopting the cash

- to

- drugs conversion rate. See id

. The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50876 Document: 00516317057 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2022
#### Harvey Church, Appellant, *v.*Jonathan W. Freeman, impleaded, etc., Respondent.

(Argued September 30, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action for an accounting between partners. Defence, settlement. Decided upon the facts in the case.

*Ii. W. Van Pelt*for the appellant.

*J. H. Reynolds*for the respondent.

Earl, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed with costs.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60795 Summary Calendar

VIRGINIA BENEDICTA VEGA DE MARCOTE , also known as Virginia Benedicta Quintero, also known as Virginia Benedicta Marcote ,
Petitioner

v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A039 172 353

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Virginia Benedicta Vega d e Marco te , a native and citizen of Colo mbia , challenges the denial of her application for w ithholding of removal. Following several Texas state

- law drug convictions, Vega was charged with being an alien subject to removal , on the grounds she was convicted of : an aggravated felony , see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); an attempt, or

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60795 Document: 00513408158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016N o. 14

- 60795

2 conspiracy, to commit an aggravated felony, id .; a nd a violation of a state law regarding federally

- controlled substances, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Vega
conceded removability pursuant to § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) , but denied she was
removable as an aggravated felon under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Following a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) sustained th e aggravated

- felony

removability charge. Vega subsequently filed an application for asylum and withholding of

remov al under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) , asserting she would be subject to persecution from guerillas and gangs if forced to return to Colombia. The IJ concluded Vega failed to establish she was entitled to withholding of removal under either the
INA or CAT, and t he Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed her appeal.
When an alien is removable under § § 1227(a)(2)( A

)(i ii ) or (a)(2)(B) , we generally lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) ; e.g. , Flores

- Garza v. I.N.S. , 328 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2003)

. Jurisdiction is proper, however, if p etitioner presents “constitutional claims or questions of law”. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)

. V ega contends : the evidence , includ ing her credible testimony, establishes she is eligible for withholding of removal under the INA ; and the IJ erred in concluding otherwise. Her assertions, however, present nothing
more than her disagreement with the IJ’s f actual findi ngs ; therefore , we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal

. E.g. , Siwe v. Holder , 742 F.3d 603, 613 (5th Cir. 2014); 8 U.S.C. § 1 252(a)(2)(C).
DISMISSED. Case: 14-60795 Document: 00513408158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2016