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

No. 16-4017

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2017

Filed: June 12, 2017

Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, Troy Robert Morley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Pierre, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Camille Touche, Pro Se

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Camille Touche brings this appeal after the district court1 revoked her supervised release on a federal sentence that she was serving, and imposed a revocation sentence of 11 months in prison and no additional supervised release. Twice before, the district court had revoked Touche’s supervised release, and imposed revocation sentences and additional supervised release, for violations of her release conditions. For reversal, Touche argues that her revocation sentence is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, because the cumulative total of her revocation prison terms exceeds by one month the term of supervised release that was originally imposed, or that is authorized for the underlying offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b). We affirm.

Touche’s argument fails. Under the law applicable to her offense, which she committed in 2007, revocation sentences are not aggregated in determining statutory limits. See United States v. Lewis, 519 F.3d 822, 824-25 (8th Cir. 2008) (former § 3583(e)(3) requirement to aggregate revocation prison sentences changed with April 30, 2003 addition of phrase “on any such revocation”; where original offense of *278conviction was committed thereafter, plain language of § 3583(e)(3) permits sentencing without considering or aggregating prison . terms for prior revocations).2 Touche argues that Lewis was wrongly decided, but the decision is binding unless overruled by the court en banc. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1085 (8th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

2

. Only when a court imposes both a revocation sentence and additional supervised release do prior revocation prison terms limit the permissible sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States v. Zoran, 682 F.3d 1060, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2012).
#### Juan CHAPETA-AJTZALAM, AKA Juan Ajtzalam Chapeta, AKA Juan Ajzalam Chapeta, AKA Juan Chapeta, AKA Juan A. Chapeta, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71028

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 6, 2017

Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Virginia Gordon, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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

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), Thus, Chapeta-Ajtzalam’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Chapeta-Ajtzalam, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Chapeta-Ajtzalam failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). We reject his contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard. Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social group Chapeta-Ajtzalam presents for the first time in his opening brief. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Chapeta-Ajtzalam failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Chapeta-Ajtzalam failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. *See Alphonsus v. Holder,*705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013).

*422PETITION 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.21
                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                            EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated as of July 10, 2000, entered between Peter J. Statile,
residing at 37 Belfast Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10306 ("Executive"), and
Precision Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), is entered
into as of March 22, 2001. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein will
have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

                                  RECITALS

      A.    The Executive is currently the Executive Vice President of Corporate
Development and Operations of the Company and Precision Partners Holding
Company, a Delaware corporation ("PPHC", and together with the Company
collectively, "Precision").

      B.    Each of Executive and Precision desires to amend the Agreement as
follows.

      Accordingly, the parties hereby agree as follows:

Section 1. AMENDMENTS. The Agreement is hereby amended as set forth below:

            Section 1.5(a) is amended by adding after the word "vest" in line
            thirteen thereof, "on the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Effective
            Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Performance-Based Options
            shall accelerate and become exercisable", by replacing the word
            "such" in line thirteen thereof with "a" and by replacing the word
            "Such" at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the twenty-sixth
            line thereof with "Except as set forth in the preceding sentence,
            such".

Section 2. EFFECTIVENESS. This Amendment will be deemed effective as of March
22, 2001.

Section 3. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in separate original or
facsimile counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original
instrument and all of which taken together will constitute a single instrument.


<PAGE>


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed as of the date first above written.



                                       PRECISION PARTNERS, INC.



                                       By /s/ Frank R. Reilly
                                         ------------------------------------
                                          Frank R. Reilly
                                          Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer




                                       EXECUTIVE


                                       /s/ Peter J. Statile
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Peter J. Statile
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Robert P. Potter, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of drugstore.com, inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Robert P. PotterRobert P. PotterVice President, Chief Accounting Officer


May 2,
2011
EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of our report dated February 25, 2000, except as to the subsequent
events described in note 15 which are as of March 20, 2000 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of 360networks inc., which appear in Amendment
No. 2 to 360networks inc.'s Registration Statement on Form F-1 (No. 333-95621),
filed with the Commission on April 18, 2000 and listed in the accompanying
index.

We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 20-F of our report dated March 12, 1999 relating to the consolidated
income statement and statements of changes in shareholders' equity and of cash
flows of Worldwide Fiber (USA), Inc., which appears in Amendment No. 2 to
360networks inc.'s Registration Statement on Form F-1 (No. 333-95621), filed
with the Commission on April 18, 2000 and listed in the accompanying index.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Vancouver, Canada
April 19, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JANUARY 29, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          59,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,082
<PP&E>                                         121,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,984
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           307
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,593
<SALES>                                        452,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,355
<CGS>                                          292,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  292,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               117,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,576
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,576
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79


</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries of AudioCodes Ltd.

AudioCodes
Inc.

AudioCodes
National Inc.

AudioCodes UK
Ltd.

Nuera Communications Singapore Pte Ltd.

AudioCodes Singapore Pte Ltd

AudioCodes Europe Ltd.

AudioCodes Brasil Equipamentos de Voz sobre IP Ltda

AudioCodes
Korea Co. Ltd.

AudioCodes
Germany GmbH

AudioCodes Argentina SA

AudioCodes India Private Ltd.

AudioCodes Russ Ltd.

AudioCodes France SAS

AudioCodes
Japan K.K.

AudioCodes
Mexico S.A. DE C.V.

AudioCodes
Hong Kong Limited

AudioCodes
Italy S.r.l

Nuera communications
Inc.

CTI Squared
Ltd.

CTI Squared
Inc.

---
EXHIBIT
32.1
 Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer
 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 accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A of Asian
Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
I, Wenhua Guo, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Date:
March 10, 2009
 /s/
      Wenhua GuoWenhua
      GuoChairman
      of the Board of Directors and
                ChiefExecutive
      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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6559 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6559

To provide for the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
   to ensure that certain aviation roundtables may appoint technical 
                representatives, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

Mr. Panetta (for himself, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Mullin, and Mr. 
   Sherman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
   to ensure that certain aviation roundtables may appoint technical 
                representatives, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``All Participating in Process 
Reaching Informed Solutions for Everyone Act'' or the ``APPRISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.

    (a) In General.--In carrying out the implementation process for 
NextGen performance-based navigation (as described in FAA Order 
JO7100.41A, or any subsequent similar order), the Administrator of the 
Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that any covered aviation 
roundtable or community highly impacted by aviation noise may appoint a 
technical representative or consultant to participate as member of the 
core working group or the full working group of such process on the 
same terms and conditions as a representative of the industry, an 
airport, or a participating proponent of a procedure.
    (b) Covered Aviation Roundtable Defined.--The term ``covered 
aviation roundtable'' means an aviation roundtable--
            (1) that is the actual or de facto proponent of a proposed 
        new or modified performance-based navigation flight procedure; 
        or
            (2) for which the modified procedure path to be implemented 
        in the process described in subsection (a) is within 5 miles of 
        the jurisdictional area of the aviation roundtable.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate a report on the progress made toward implementing the 
requirements under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard Olney *versus*Jonathan Adams *et al.*

*Oct.*1st.

*Oct. 3d.*

A mortgager may plead a disclaimer in bar to a writ of entry to foreclose brought against him after he has assigned his right to redeem.

This was a writ of entry brought to foreclose a mortgage df twenty thirty-seventh parts of certain real estate. The defendants being seised of the demanded premises, conveyed the same to the plaintiff in fee and in mortgage, and the right in equity to redeem was transferred, through mesne conveyances, to S. Lovett and others, who were tenants in common of the other seventeen thirty-seventh parts of the land. Service was made on Lovett, the tenant then and ever since in possession of the demanded premises, claiming for himself and as agent of the other purchasers of the equity of redemption. The defendants pleaded a disclaimer in bar.

Newton, for the tenants.

The question is, whether in an action to foreclose a mortgage the mortgager may plead in bar a disclaimer This is a real action, and it differs from other real actions in only these two respects : first, it lies against any per son in possession, he not being permitted to say that he is not seised of a freehold estate; and secondly, the judgment is conditional. But these differences have no bearing upon the principle upon which a disclaimer is pleaded, namely, that a person not in possession cannot render possession. The action ought to have been against the person in possession. *Taylor*v. Porter, 7 Mass. R. 355 ; *Keith*v. Swan, 11 Mass. R. 216 ; *Somes*v. Skinner, 3 Pick. 63 This case comes within *St.*1795, c. 75, § 2.

*Prentiss,*contra,

relied on the circumstance that this action differs from a real action and is not governed by the same strict rules. *Penniman*v. *Hollis,*13 Mass. R. 430 ; *Green*v. *Kemp,*ibid. 516. If this action is not sustained, the demandant has no remedy against any one, for the person in possession is a tenant in common.

*Per Curiam.*

The action cannot be maintained against the mortgager, who had transferred all his right and interest in the *34land, and was not in possession.1 We see no difficulty in bringing the action against a tenant in common who has purchased the equity of redemption.

1

 See Revised Stat. *c.*107, § 8, where it is provided, that the mortgager may be joined as defendant in all eases of this kind, whether at the time he has transferred his interest in the estate or not. See also *Hunt*v. *Hunt,*17 Pick. 118.
### SCWC-11-0000814
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. CHONG HUNG HAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000814; CR. NO. 10-1-1098)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )



### The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on December 31, 2012 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Chong Hung Han is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 14, 2013. Evan S. Tokunaga, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000814 14-FEB-2013 09:48 AM
Exhibit 10.2




 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED


BREITBURN ENERGY PARTNERS
L.P. 2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This First Amendment
(this “Amendment”) to the First Amended and Restated BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) is made and adopted as of April 27, 2011 by the Compensation and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors
of BreitBurn GP, LLC (the “Committee”) acting in its capacity as the administrator of the Plan and as General Partner
of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.BreitBurn
GP, LLC maintains the Plan, which was originally adopted as of October 9, 2006 and restated and amended effective October 29, 2009;


 


B.The Committee
deems it advisable to amend the Plan as set forth herein, subject to the approval of this Amendment by the holders of Common Units
of the Partnership (“Unitholder Approval”); and


 


C.Pursuant to Section
7 of the Plan, the Committee has the authority to amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations.


 


AMENDMENT


 


1.Subject to and
effective as of the date of Unitholder Approval, the first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated
in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“Subject to adjustment
as provided in Section 4(c), the number of Units that may be delivered with respect to Awards under the Plan is 9,702,064.”


 


2. Capitalized terms
used in this Amendment without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.


 


3.This Amendment
shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan.


 


4.Except as otherwise
expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


5.This Amendment
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws in force in the state of Delaware, without regard to that state’s
conflict-of-laws rules and principles.


 


I hereby certify that
this Amendment was duly adopted by the Committee on April 27, 2011.


 


Executed this 27th
day of April, 2011.


 





	 	BREITBURN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	BREITBURN GP, LLC
	 	 	 	 
	 	Its:	General Partner
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/Halbert S. Washburn	 
	 	Name:	Halbert S. Washburn
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer




 






    	1
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 

OF PINNACLEDATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certificationaccompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008. 

I, Nicholas J. Tomashot, certify that,the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained inthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

Thiscertification is executed as of November 12, 2008.