alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Angel GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40108 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Miguel Angel Gomez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed *385a 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). Gomez 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 *385published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Order entered August 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00780 - CV MICHAEL O. PICKENS, Appellant

V. ELIZABETH CORDIA, ET AL, Appellee s On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 01890 - F



### O RDER The Court GRANTS appellant’s August 3, 2013 motion to accept resubmission of the brief

. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                               9
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,561
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    128,239
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         114,589
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           117,984
<LOANS>                                        322,016
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,312
<DEPOSITS>                                     527,340
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,115
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,073
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,094
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,680
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 609,312
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,994
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,639
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   219
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,852
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,959
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,893
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      125
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 288
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,451
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,451
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,816
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Magnetic field simulation and years of fieldtesting utilized to optimize power‐outputefficiency and torque‐curves for multi‐rotorand sUAS specific applications. The XF Multi‐Rotor Brushless Motor series produce a high‐level of performance and are built to thehighest‐quality standards and manufacturingtechnology available.All XF Series motors have dual propeller mounting profiles foruse with the included KDE Direct XF adapters; and simplecompatibility with a wide‐range of available propulsionoptions for easy installation.Stator construction uses the highest‐grade, 0.2mm silicon steel laminations and ultra‐hightemperature (240°C/464°F), pure‐copper core‐windings for optimum efficiency and powertransfer. All windings are further secured witha continuous, Kevlar‐tie wrap around all statorteeth to reduce chance of winding shorts.High‐temperature (200°C/392°F), silicon‐wire power leadscome pre‐soldered with 24K bullet connectors for easy,hassle‐free installation.All XF Series motors utilize an innovative,universal mounting pattern and shaft‐retaining collar for drop‐in compatibilityand safety with all multi‐rotor designs.All motors use triple, ABEC‐7 rated radial‐bearings for extremely smooth operation.All XF Series motors use true‐grade, high‐temperaturerated (180°C/356°F), N45UH Neodymium sintered‐magnets for industry‐leading performance. An uppermagnet retaining ring, machined slots, and 360° epoxybonds are incorporated at each magnet location tosecure a permanent connection to the magnet bell.
exhibit10_8.htm











Exhibit 10.8







April 17, 2012







CharlieDaniel












Dear Charlie:







The 2012 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on pre-tax profit for the company in 2012.








	
35.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$               1


	
42.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$1,000,000


	
50.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$2,000,000


	
62.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$3,000,000


	
75.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$4,000,000












In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company makes a pre-tax profit of at least $1.







I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.







The 2012 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2012 through January 2013.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.







Sincerely,






















Peter Edison


ss
#### Jesus Adrian LOPEZ-MERCARDO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73669

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Jesus Adrian Lopez-Mercardo, Pro Se

OIL, David J. Schor, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*750Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.;

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Adrian Lopez-Mercardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*463 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Lopez-Mercardo testified he had never been harmed in Mexico, but fears harm from unidentified people if he returns. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that Lopez-Mercardo failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution or that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where it was too speculative); *see also INS v. Stevic,*467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984) (explaining the difference between the asylum and withholding of removal standards.) Thus, Lopez-Mercardo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Mercardo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of future torture speculative); *Dhital v. Mukasey,*532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Harley Tancayo < harleytancayo@yahoo.com> 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:32 PM 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

Mokulele airlines 

To whom it may concern, my name is Harley Tancayo, I always use Mokulele Airlines. It's the ontime airlines. It's been servicing Moloka'i for quite some time now. The workers here are very friendly 

and very helpful. It'll be great to know that Mokulele could service Kalaupapa and the rest of the 

other island. They're reliable, efficient and prices are reasonable. Please choose Mokulele as your 

choice. 

Thank you, Harley Tancayo 

1
STATE EX REL. Perry JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-2037

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof or identify cognizable grounds for relief on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2 ; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3.

Relator has now fully litigated an application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a *561successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
1

Filed 6/20/16 P. v. Willis CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TODD JOSEPH WILLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C081042

(Super. Ct. No. 15F06505)

Defendant Todd Joseph Willis was charged with felony first degree robbery and 

misdemeanor resisting an officer. The complaint alleged that, as to the robbery charge, 

defendant had a prior strike conviction. 

Defendant pled no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily 

injury, a lesser related offense to count one, and petty theft, a newly added count, and 

admitted the prior strike in exchange for a four-year state prison sentence and dismissal 

of the resisting charge. The factual basis of the plea is as follows: 

On October 18, 2015, defendant assaulted R. T. by means of force likely to 

produce great bodily injury. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the petty theft 

charge. On September 13, 2010, defendant was convicted of robbery, a felony. 
2

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant 

to the lower term of two years on the assault, doubled for the prior strike, for an 

aggregate sentence of four years in state prison. Defendant, who was then serving time 

on an unrelated matter, waived presentence custody credit in exchange for immediate 

commencement of his sentence. The court imposed “minimum fees and fines” and 

reserved jurisdiction on the issue of victim restitution. 

The abstract of judgment imposed a $300 restitution fine; a $300 parole revocation 

fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole; an $80 court operations assessment,

and a $60 criminal conviction assessment. 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court granted his request for a 

certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979), 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right 

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More 

than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Hull, Acting P. J.

/s/ 

Butz. J.
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PERSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George A. Troutman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

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

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ George A. Troutman 
|Chief Financial Officer



30
#### In the Matter of Abraham Rosenberg, Appellant. Sam Slatkin, Respondent.

Argued January 18, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*649
      *Louis D. Frohlich*and *Herbert P. Jacoby*for appellant.

*Harry A. Sindell*for respondent.

Order affirmed with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe GUERRERO-RODRIGUEZ, Also Known as Jesus Lopez Cabral, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10982 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 17, 2017

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

Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal. Public Defender, Helen Miller Liggett, .Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s, Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant .

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Guerrero-Rodríguez appeals the above-guidelines sentence imposed for illegal reentry after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which we review for an abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “A non-Guidelines sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” *United States v. Diehl, 775*F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). “[Rjeview for substantive reasonableness is highly deferential.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The court based the sentence on permissible statutory factors. In essence, Guerrero-Rodríguez is requesting that this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of our review. *See Gall, 552*U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. There is no indication that the district court gave improper weight to Guerrero-Rodriguez’s extensive history of immigration violations or any mitigating factors. *See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).. Likewise, the degree of .the upward variance does not render the. sentence substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. Key,*599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Amendment, dated May 9, 2012, to Amended and Restated Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO $350 MILLION AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE 

This AMENDMENT TO $350 MILLION AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made as of May 9,
2012 (the “Effective Date”), by and between MANNKIND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and THE
MANN GROUP LLC (“Lender”), each of which is a party to that certain Amended and Restated Promissory Note, dated August 10, 2010, as amended January 16, 2012 (the
“Note”). 
 WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Note provides that any provision of the Note may be
amended or waived with the written consent of Lender and Borrower; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the
Note as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
 1. AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 1 OF THE NOTE. The reference to “March 31, 2013” in Section 1 of the Note is hereby replaced with “July 1, 2013.” 

2. COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile and electronic (PDF) signatures shall be as effective as original signatures. 

3. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in
accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, excluding conflict of laws principles that would cause the application of laws of any other jurisdiction. Borrower consents to in personam jurisdiction of the courts in the State of New York
sitting in New York County and of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York for any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Amendment. Borrower, by execution and delivery of this Amendment, hereby irrevocably
accepts in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts. 
 4.
EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect without modification.

 [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first
written above. 
  

			
	BORROWER:
	
	MANNKIND CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Matthew Pfeffer
	Name: Matthew Pfeffer
	Title:   Chief Financial Officer
	
	LENDER:
	
	THE MANN GROUP LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alfred E. Mann
	Name: Alfred E. Mann
	Title:   Managing Member


  

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO AMENDED
AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE]