alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LEROY AUGUSTUS LANE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:06-cr-00992-GRA-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R. W. Toepp, Margaret Sander, 

REED SMITH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. William N. 

Nettles, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Augustus Lane appeals from the 240-month 

sentence imposed at his resentencing hearing, following vacation 

of his sentence pursuant to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. On appeal, Lane asserts that the district court 

miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range. Specifically, he 

states that the presentence report (“PSR”) erroneously applied 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2010). The 

Government concedes error on appeal. Accordingly, we vacate 

Lane’s sentence and remand for further proceedings.

The PSR applied USSG § 4B1.1 and assigned Lane a base 

offense level of 37, the base offense level for a career 

offender subject to a statutory maximum life sentence. However,

the base offense level for a career offender subject to a 

statutory maximum sentence of twenty to less than twenty-five 

years* is only 32. See USSG § 4B1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, Lane’s 

advisory Guidelines range (of 240 months) was miscalculated, and 

taking into account the statutory maximum, the parties agree 

that his range should have instead been 210-240 months. Because 

the parties are in agreement that the error should be corrected, 

we vacate Lane’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

 * At resentencing, it was undisputed that Lane’s statutory 

maximum sentence was twenty years.
3

On remand, Lane should be appointed a different 

attorney from the one who represented him at his prior two 

sentencing hearings. In addition, his case should be reassigned 

to a different district court judge. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.1


                               VANSTAR CORPORATION

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                   OCTOBER 31,            OCTOBER 31
                                              --------------------   --------------------
                                                  1997      1996       1997       1996
                                              ----------  --------   --------   ---------

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
<S>                                           <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
Weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding                      43,154     40,960     43,037     40,718

Common equivalent shares from stock
 options using the treasury stock method         1,376      1,845      1,251      1,722

                                               -------    -------    -------    -------
Shares used in per share calculation            44,530     42,805     44,288     42,440
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Net Income                                     $ 9,300    $11,078    $15,860    $20,840
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======
Earnings per share                             $  0.21    $  0.26    $  0.36    $  0.49
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding                      43,154     40,960     43,037     40,718

Common equivalent shares from stock options
 using the treasury stock method                 1,376      1,884      1,271      1,751
                                               -------    -------    -------    -------
Shares used in per share calculation            44,530     42,844     44,308     42,469
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======
Net Income                                     $ 9,300    $11,078    $15,860    $20,840
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Earnings per share                             $  0.21    $  0.26    $  0.36    $  0.49
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.1  PANOLAM
INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. STATEMENT
REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (in
thousands, except ratios)  Year Ended
  December 31,
  
  NineMonthsEndedSeptember
  
  PeriodOctober 1,2005 toDecember
  
  YearEndedDecember
  
  YearEndedDecember
  
  YearEndedDecember2003
  
  2004
  
  30, 2005
  
  31, 2005
  
  31, 2006
  
  31, 2007
  
  31, 2008Net income
  (loss) before income taxes (benefit)
  
  $
  11,395
  
  $
  10,357
  
  $
  (1,559
  )
  $
  (2,584
  )
  $
  14,852
  
  $
  5,318
  
  $
  (142,981
  )Interest expense
  
  14,085
  
  14,688
  
  20,693
  
  6,918
  
  35,577
  
  34,891
  
  29,438Interest portion
  of rent expense (1)
  
  507
  
  569
  
  412
  
  139
  
  1,300
  
  1,181
  
  1,182Earnings (loss)
  available for fixed charges (2)
  
  25,987
  
  25,614
  
  19,546
  
  4,473
  
  51,729
  
  41,390
  
  (112,361
  )Divided by:Fixed charges
  
  14,592
  
  15,257
  
  21,105
  
  7,057
  
  36,877
  
  36,072
  
  30,620Ratio of
  earnings to fixed charges
  
  1.8
  x
  1.7
  x
  0.9
  x
  0.6
  x
  1.4
  x
  1.1
  x
  (3.7
  )x  
 (1)The interest portion of
rent expense is assumed to be equal to 33.3% of rental expense for each of the
respective periods.  (2)The
amounts of the deficiency in earnings available for fixed charges in which the
ratio is less than one-to-one are $1,559 for the nine months ended September 30,
2005, $2,584 for the three months ended December 31, 2005, and $142,981
for the year-ended December 31, 2008.
#### Jose Jesus Arredondo GOMEZ, aka Jose Arredondo, aka Jose Jesus Arredondo, aka Jose Arredondo Gomez, aka Jesus Gomez, aka Jose Gomez, aka Jose Ibarra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70430

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 4, 2017 * Pasadena, California

OCTOBER 10, 2017

Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

*409Edward C. Durant, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arredondo Gomez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal.

The IJ and the BIA did not err in relying on Arredondo Gomez’s admissions, made during the pleading stage of his removal hearing. *See Perez-Mejia v. Holder,*663 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2011). Arredon-do Gomez admitted each of the allegations in the notice to appear, which alleged that he had been convicted of two controlled substance offenses involving methamphetamine. Because these admissions established Arredondo Gomez’s removability pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(B)®, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)®, by clear and convincing evidence, we deny the petition for review, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c)-(d).1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

1

. Arredondo Gomez challenges on appeal the IJ's and the BIA’s reliance on the complaint in finding him removable. Even assuming Ar-redondo Gomez exhausted this issue before the BIA, the documents were properly considered by the IJ and the BIA as an alternative basis to confirm his removability. *See Coronado*v. *Holder,*759 F.3d 977, 986 (9th Cir. 2014).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) for the period ending January 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dawn G. Lepore, President,
Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



/s/ Dawn G. LeporeDawn G. LeporePresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

March 16, 2010
#### John Anthony SPENCER Plaintiff-Appellant v. WARDEN FPC DULUTH; CO Anderson; CO Baker; CO Gravdal; CO Brian H; Unknown CO with CO Baker on 12-19-12; Mail Room Staff of Dec. 12, 2012; FPC Duluth; Chris Nickrenz; Patrick Thyen Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4142

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 18, 2017

Filed: September 21, 2017

John Anthony Spencer, Pro Se

Bahram Samie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate John Spencer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights action filed under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Following careful *de novo*review of the record, we agree with the district court that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Spencer’s due process, denial-of-court-access, and retaliation claims for the reasons cited in the magistrate judge’s report. We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appointment of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. *591Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Daniel A. Capen, M.D.; et al., Appellees.

No. 14-55845

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se

Paul R. Pearlson, Esquire, Cameron & Pearlson, Long Beach, CA, for Appellees Daniel A. Capen, Amir Azizi, Timothy J. Hunter, Khiem D. Dao, Howard J. Mar-ans, Maryam Azizi, Robert A. Rafael

Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy. Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller

Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se.from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order converting Hunt’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 7 proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in converting Hunt’s bankruptcy case. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as meritless Hunt’s contentions that the district court and bankruptcy . court lacked jurisdiction and demonstrated bias.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |                                     |                                     |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                     |                                     |
|                                |                                |                                |
| Date: March                31, 2006 | By:                            | /s/ *ANDREW                HIDALGO* |
|                                     | Andrew                  Hidaldo          |
|                                     | Chief                  Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,202
<PP&E>                                         145,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,729
<BONDS>                                         12,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,324
<SALES>                                         46,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,659
<CGS>                                           18,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   393
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
Second Amendment to the Registrant's 2010 Incentive Award Plan


 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
 STEC, INC. 2010 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN

 This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”) to the STEC, Inc. 2010 Incentive Award Plan (the
“Plan”), is adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of STEC, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), effective as of March 22, 2012. Capitalized terms used in this Second
Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 
 RECITALS 

 

	A.	The Company currently maintains the Plan, originally adopted on March 26, 2010. 


 

	B.	Pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to amend the Plan to increase the Share Limit, subject to approval by the stockholders of the
Company within twelve (12) months of such action. 

  

	C.	The Board believes it to be in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to increase the Share Limit. 


AMENDMENT 
  

	1.	Subject to the timely approval by the stockholders of the Company, Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 “Subject to Section 13.2 and Section 3.1(b), the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued
or transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan is 9,100,000 (the “Share Limit”); provided, however, that such aggregate number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan shall be reduced by 1.32 shares
for each Share delivered in settlement of any Full Value Award.” 
 This Second Amendment shall be and hereby is
incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Second Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company as of March 22, 2012. 

 

			
	STEC, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert M. Saman

		 	Robert M. Saman
		 	Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Secretary
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 0 5 6 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

– A p p e l l e e ,

v
. A L F R E D O M I R A N D A

- G O N Z A L E Z , a l s o k n o w n a s A l f r e d o M i r a n d a - G o n z a l e s , a l s o k n o w n a s A l f

r e d o M i r a n d a , D e f e n d a n t

– A p p e l l a n t

.

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 0 1

- 1

B e f o r e W I E N E R , P R A D O , a n d O W E N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t A l f r e d o M i r a n d a - G o n z a l e z h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. M i r a n d a h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s

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 9 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t 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 I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2010N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 0 5 6

G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2010
#### YONGHUA LIU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73164

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*393Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

Richard Lucero, Law Office of Richard Lucero, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yonghua Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 Tor-tee (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Ren v. Holder,*648 F.3d 1079, 1083, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Among other things, the agency denied Liu’s application for relief on the ground that he failed to adequately corroborate his claim. In doing so, the agency found that the evidence Liu had submitted did not meet his burden of proof for relief. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See id.*at 1094. Thus, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

We reject Liu’s contention that the BIA erred by finding that he waived his CAT claim. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding the merits of his CAT claim. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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