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

No. 16-50317

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Frederick Miller, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sarah Marie Gorman, Trial Attorney, Law Offices of Sarah M. Gorman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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 **

Julian Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Juarez contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). *561He argues that the court did not adequately consider all of the factors contained in the commentary to the Guideline, and failed to compare him to all of his co-participants in the offense. Reviewing de novo, *see United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that Juarez’s claims fail. The record reflects that the court invited comment at the sentencing hearing on each of the five factors and properly considered those factors, as well as the totality of the circumstances, before concluding that Juarez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Moreover, the court compared Juarez to his named co-participants in the offense and considered other possible participants in the overall scheme. Finally, contrary to Juarez’s claim, the court did not apply this court’s precedent in a way that conflicts with the minor role Guideline. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523 (because the five factors are non-exhaustive, “a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or denying a minor role reduction”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No.14-13-00512-CR

________________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 

 FOURTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 AT HOUSTON

________________________________________________________________________ 

 RONALD CROW § APPELLANT

 V. § 

STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE 

______________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLATE BRIEF

COMES NOW RONALD CROW, Appellant in the above entitled and numbered

cause and moves the court to extend the time for filing his appellate brief and in support

thereof would show the court as follows:

Appellant was convicted of the felony of injury to a child in cause number 16373 in

the 21st District Court of Washington County and assessed a punishment of imprisonment

for two years in the Correctional Division, on April 26, 2013. Appeal was perfected on June

7, 2013. Appellant’s brief was due on September 16, 2015. The Court reporter’s record was

filed on August 19, 2015. Counsel has not had sufficient time to read the record and write

the brief. Appellant is requesting an extension of 30 days, until October 24, 2015.

 Five prior extensions have been granted.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that the foregoing

motion be granted.

ACCEPTED

14-13-00512-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/24/2015 7:06:09 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/24/2015 7:06:09 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ J. Sidney Crowley

 J. Sidney Crowley 

 214 Morton St.

 Richmond, Texas 77469

 281-232-8332

 jcrowl@windstream.net

 TBC No. 05170200

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on the

Washington County District Attorney’s Office, this the 24thday of September, 2015. 

 

/s/ J. Sidney Crowley

2
Montavious Kentrell ASKEW v. STATE

CR-15-0056

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1  Pacific WebWorks, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: September 24, 2007/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Phillip White, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 811]

Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an incident in which he engaged in a verbal exchange with a civilian cook while in the serving line at the prison where he was incarcerated, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with creating a disturbance, interfering with an employee, refusing a direct order and a mess hall serving and seating violation. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all charges except refusing a direct order. After the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

*763Various witnesses who were present in the mess hall testified that petitioner became disruptive when the cook who was serving spaghetti would not give him a larger portion. According to such witnesses, petitioner became loud and argumentative, causing the serving line to stop and other inmates to become restless. Such testimony provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 2*AD3d 958, 959 [2003]).

Petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of a fair hearing also is unavailing. In order to prevail on such claim, petitioner must show that the Hearing Officer was biased and that the determination flowed from such bias *(see Matter of James v Goord,*261 AD2d 733 [1999]). This he failed to do. There simply is nothing in the transcript to indicate that the Hearing Officer conducted himself in a biased or inappropriate manner and, as noted previously, the record as a whole more than supports the determination of guilt.

Finally, there is no merit to petitioner’s attack upon the adequacy of his employee assistance. While petitioner contends that the employee assigned was not his first choice, he did not indicate a preference on the assistance form, and the assistant was one of the two individuals requested by petitioner. In any event, we do not find on the record before us that the assistance was inadequate or that petitioner was prejudiced thereby *(see Matter of Rodriguez v Goord,*250 AD2d 905 [1998]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Danielle Keith BURKS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-20526

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 29, 2017

Danielle Keith Burks, Pro Se

Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

*226Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Danielle Keith Burks, Texas prisoner # 1779069, moves for a certifícate of ap-pealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2264 application for failure to exhaust state court remedies. He also moves for appointment of counsel. Burks challenges his state conviction for tampering with evidence, for which he was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment..

A COA may issue only if the applicant makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C, § 2253(c)(2). When the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief is based on procedural grounds, “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1596, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Given the lack of evidence in the record as to the current state of Burks’s state habeas proceedings and the district court’s lack of findings as to whether the reason for a nearly three-year delay was justifiable, jurists of reason could question the district court’s procedural ruling dismissing the federal petition for nonexhaustion. *See id.*In Burks’s § 2254 petition, he has asserted several claims, at least some of which appear to facially assert a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Gonzalez v. Thaler,*565 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); *Houser v. Dretke,*395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004). We express no view at this time on the proper resolution of Burks’s claims and observe only that he has made a showing sufficient to warrant a COA. *See id.*

Accordingly, Burks’s motion for a COA is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment dismissing the motion for failure to exhaust state court remedies is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further factual development regarding whether the delay in considering Burks’s state habeas, application is justifiable and whether the state proceedings are progressing. *See id., Whitehead v. Johnson,*157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). If the delay is not justifiable and the matter has not progressed in the state courts, the district court shall proceed to consider the merits of the federal habeas petition. Burks’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 10.27


 


ENDORSEMENT TO 10%
SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.


New York, New York


March 31, 2012


 


The
10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26,
2010, September 15, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010, December 1, 2010, December
3, 2010, December 17, 2010, January 10, 2011, January 24, 2011, February 7, 2011,  February 25, 2011,  March
11, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 15, 2011, April 29, 2011, May 13, 2011, June 3, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 6, 2011, July 20, 2011,
July 25, 2011,  July 27, 2011, August 31, 2011, September 30, 2011, October 31, 2011, December 15, 2011 and January 31,
2012  (the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of Arnold Schumsky (the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $50,000 and to which
this Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


	 	
         

        1.
	
         

        The second sentence of the first paragraph of the Note is hereby
        modified, and an additional sentence is inserted as follows:

         

        Subject to the other provisions of this Note, the principal
        of this Note shall mature and become due and payable on July 31, 2012 (the “Stated Maturity Date”). All accrued and
        unpaid interest on this Note up to and including March 31, 2012 shall be due on or before April 13, 2012.

	 	 	 
	 	2.	As soon as practicable following the execution of this Endorsement, the Company will issue to the Holder warrants to purchase 5,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise price of $1.20 and a term of 3 years.


   


	 	3.	Except as expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


      


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be
duly accepted, by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	 	PRECISION OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.
	 	 
	 	By	/s/ Joseph N. Forkey
	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Joseph N. Forkey
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer


 


	Accepted:	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Arnold Schumsky	 	 
	 	 	 
	Arnold Schumsky
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie TROUTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No, 17-6170

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Jimmie Troutman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, • Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie Troutman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P, 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*290We" have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Troutman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32





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 of Farmers & Merchants Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Kent A. Steinwert, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen W. Haley, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange act of 1934 and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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




March 9, 2011/s/ Kent A. SteinwertKent A. SteinwertChairman, President & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Stephen W. HaleyStephen W. HaleyExecutive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10819-10820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04062]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-966]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: S&B 
Pharma LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

[[Page 10820]]


ACTION: Notice of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: S&B Pharma LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 26, 2022. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before April 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES:  Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on December 24, 2021, S&B Pharma LLC, 405 South Motor 
Avenue, Azusa, California 91702, applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid..............     2010  I
Marihuana..............................     7360  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols..................     7370  I
Amphetamine............................     1100  II
Methamphetamine........................     1105  II
Lisdexamfetamine.......................     1205  II
Methylphenidate........................     1724  II
Pentobarbital..........................     2270  II
4-Anilino-N-Phenethyl-4-Piperidine          8333  II
 (ANPP).
Tapentadol.............................     9780  II
Fentanyl...............................     9801  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances for the internal use intermediates for formulation and 
analytical development purposes or for sale to its customers. In 
reference to dug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 
(Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these 
drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are 
authorized for this registration.

Matthew J. Strait,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04062 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 AMENDMENT AND RESTATED CLIFFS 2007 INCENTIVE EQUITY PLAN

 THIS AMENDMENT is made this 13th day of March, 2012, by Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (the “Company”). 

WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company,
with the approval of the Company’s Board of Directors (“Board”) on March 13, 2012, but contingent upon receiving approval of the Company’s shareholders at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on May 8, 2012, and the
approval of the Company’s shareholders on May 8, 2012, adopted the Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. 2012 Incentive Equity Plan (the “2012 Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Company and the Board to discontinue the issuance of any new awards under the Amended and Restated Cliffs 2007 Incentive Equity Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), as
shareholder approval of the 2012 Plan has been obtained; 
 WHEREAS, the Board has the power to amend or discontinue the Plan pursuant to
Section 14.1 thereof; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of May 8, 2012, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows: 

(1)    Section 14.4 to the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

14.4    Term. This Plan shall terminate on May 8, 2012. See Section 14.5 for the effect of this
termination on Awards outstanding on such date of termination. 
 (2)    Capitalized terms used but not defined herein
shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
executed as the date first written above. 
  

			
	CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC.
		
	BY:	 	/s/    James Michaud
		 	 James Michaud
 Senior Vice President, Human
Resources
ex10-01.htm




Exhibit 10.01

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5