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

No. 16-50194

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 14, 2017

Jonathan I. Shapiro, Helen H. Hong, Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Lawerence Baker, Attorney, Law Offices of David L. Baker, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

“We review the district court’s interpretation of the [U.S. Sentencing] Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” *United States v. Treadwell,*593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The record establishes that the district court considered the enumerated factors in' the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 when assessing whether Navarrete should receive a sentence reduction for playing a minor role in the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Defense counsel listed all five factors in the guidelines commentary, and the district court stated that it had “considered the application notes of 3B1.2.” “We assume that district judges know the law and understand their obligation to consider all of the [sentencing] factors.” *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). *531“The district court need not tick off each of the [sentencing] factors to show that it has considered them.” *Id.*The district court did not improperly rely solely upon Navar-rete’s “essential role” in the conspiracy, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a minor role sentence reduction.

2. There is no doubt that Navarrete knew the laundered funds were the proceeds of cocaine sales or were intended to promote the distribution of cocaine. The district court therefore properly applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1).

3. Navarrete entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B). The district court was not bound by its terms, *compare*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), *with*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), and at her change-of-plea hearing, Navarrete confirmed that she understood the nature of her agreement. When the district court rejected the plea agreement, it provided a robust explanation of the nature of the offense and Navarrete’s role. There was thus no error in the district court’s rejection of Navarrete’s plea agreement.

4. All arguments raised for the first time in Navarrete’s reply brief are waived. *See United States v. Romm,*455 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofDepomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Fara, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
|        |   | Date: May 9, 2007       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   | /s/ John W. Fara, Ph.D. |   |   |
|   |   | John W. Fara, Ph.D.     |
|   |   | President, Chairman and |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.70
 Move, Inc.
Performance  Based Restricted Stock
Unit Agreement
 2010 Performance Period
 Non-transferable
  Robert J. Krolik  (Grantee)
  Exhibit A
   MOVE, INC.
    
    Grant Date: July 20, 2009By: /s/ James S. Caulfield

Its: Authorized Officer




---



##### 



TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 Defined Terms
     Vesting of Units
 Completion of Performance Period.
 Upon Change of Control
  Conversion to Shares
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Dividend Equivalent Rights
 Restrictions on Transfer and Pledge
 Limitation of Rights
 Payment of Taxes
 Arbitration
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Changes in Capital Structure
 Miscellaneous
 Successors of the Company
 Amendment and Modification
 Governing Law
 Notice
 Severability
 - 4 -
#### Jean Albert Tauzeide and Charles H. Holt, Pl’ffs, v. Francois Henry Jumel *et al.,*Def’ts.

Per Curiam.

The foundation of this motion to dismiss the appeals is that the necessary printed papers have not been served. Whether that is the fact depends upon the right to include Chambrun’s papers as part of the printed book. If they are to be included then the printed papers have been regularly served. It has been concluded on the motion to dismiss the appeal of Chambrun that no such service of the judgment and notice has been made as limited his time to appeal. And as that was not terminated it was not irregular to include his papers in the printed book. And this motion must be denied, but without costs.
Exhibit
32.2






CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report On Form 10-K of Datone, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ending December 31, 2008, I, Joseph J. Passalaqua, Chief
Financial Officer/ of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.           Such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:  April
      3, 2009
            DATONE,
      INC.By:
            /s/  Joseph  J.  PassalaquaJoseph  J.
      Passalaqua
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel CAMPOS-VELIS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40439 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joel Campos-Velis, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

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

*

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

No. 16-11795 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 31, 2017

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

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Angel Gutierrez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after he had been removed and received a 46-month prison sentence to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Gutierrez argues that the district court violated his right to due process by imposing a prison term greater than the two-year maximum sentence authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because his in*434dictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction permitting a higher sentence under § 1326(b).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses Gutierrez’s argument. Gutierrez concedes that his argument is foreclosed and explains that he raises it only to preserve it for further review; thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief 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.
#### Maggie La Manna, Adm’rx, Resp’t, v. The National Security Life *&*Accident Co., App’lt.

*Wm. Allan,*for resp’t; *D. W. Northup,*for app’lt.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Earl, J., not voting, and Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 347.
extenpointfive.htm


RENO HIGH SCHOOL


FUND RAISER


REQUEST







This form must be filled out and approved prior to any fund raising activities that include Reno High School students or staff.







Organization:  Thermal Tennis Inc.







Requested by :  Christy Funk, Girl’s Tennis Coach







Date(s) of activity:  June 11 – July 30, 2012







Type of fundraiser:  Thermal Tennis will run kids tennis summer camps from June 11 until July 30, 2012 o n the Reno High School Tennis Courts.







Sales Description:  At the conclusion of the programs, Thermal Tennis will make a donation to the RHS Girl’s Tennis Team and/or tennis court repair accounts.







Product/Service to be sold:  Tennis camps for kids.







Wholesale Cost:  N/A







Retail Price:  N/A







Location of Activity:  (YOU MUST STILL FILL OUT A FACILITY REQUEST FORM WITH MR. ROTHE):  RHS Tennis Courts







It is the responsibility of the advisor to ensure that they are in compliance with all WCSD and Reno High School policies concerning the management of activity funds.







Advisor’s Signature  /s/ Christy Funk      Date 05/10/12







Activities Administrator /s/ Brian D. Rothe                 X  Approved


                                                                                            __ Denied
#### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALETHEIA RESEARCH MANAGEMENT, Defendant, and Peter J. Eichler, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-55887

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

*513John B. Bulgozdy, Esquire, Senior Trial Attorney, Janet E. Moser, Senior Counsel, SEC — Securities and Exchange Commission, Los Angeles, CA, David Lisitza, Senior Litigation Counsel, Benjamin M. Vet-ter, Attorney, Securities *&*Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Peter J. Eichler, Jr., Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Peter J. Eichler, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the Securities Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion for monetary remedies in its civil enforcement action alleging violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *SEC v. First Pac. Bancorp,*142 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998) (disgorgement); *Fed. Election Comm’n v. Furgatch,*869 F.2d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989) (civil penalty). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disgorgement of $1,655,923 and relying on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s expert in setting the disgorgement amount. *See SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assocs.,*440 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he district court has broad equity powers to order the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains obtained through the violation of federal securities laws” and “broad discretion in calculating the amount to be disgorged.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the civil penalty equal to the disgorgement amount. *See*15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B) (authorizing civil penalties equal to the amount of pecuniary gains as a result of securities violations); 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)(2) (same).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time 'on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

486.42273
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.2

February 12, 1999

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NCS HealthCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-49417; Form S-3 No. 333-63437; Form S-3 No. 333-47293; Form
S-3/A No. 333-29565; Form S-3/A No. 333-35551;  Form S-8 No. 333-70741 and Form
S-8 No. 333-72243) of NCS HealthCare, Inc. of our report dated February 12,
1999, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial
statements of NCS HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries that are included in its
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,1998.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP





                                       18
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. T. W. FERGUSON and Edith R. Ferguson, his wife, Appellants.

No. 10418.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 1, 1966.

Decided Oct. 19, 1966.

*325W. H. McElwee, No. Wilkesboro, N. C. (John E. Hall and McElwee & Hall, No. Wilkesboro, N. C., on the brief) for appellants.

William M. Cohen, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept, of Justice, and William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty., on the brief) for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BELL, Circuit Judge, and HEMPHILL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant landowners urge upon this court their exceptions to the report of the Condemnation Commission as affirmed by the District Court. They first complain that the report of the Commission did not meet the directives set forth in United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 84 S.Ct. 639, 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964).1 Other exceptions question the Commission’s finding that the highest and best use of the flowage easement was for agricultural purposes and complain that the formula used for ascertaining the measure of damages caused by estimated intermittent flooding of appellants’ lands was erroneous. With these contentions this court does not agree.

A thorough review of the record shows that the Commission scrupulously followed the instructions of the appointing authority. As disclosed by the minutes of the Clerk of the Court, a part of the record, every facet of Commission procedure outlined in *Merz*was adhered to. And, as required, “the path followed by the commissioners in reaching the amount of the award can * * * be distinctly marked.” It is unnecessary to question whether the issue was timely raised.2

We affirm the district judge in his finding that the landowners have been justly compensated for all burdens and restrictions placed upon their land, and agree that the record reveals no error. It is apparent that the Commissioners, under the instructions given them, correctly followed the principles expressed by this court in United States v. Willis, 141 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1944) and United States v. Twin City Power Company, 248 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1957). The market value of the land was used as a basis for fixing compensation and the path of reasoning, as set forth in the report, is clear and unambiguous.

Affirmed.

1

. Appellee classifies this as an attack on the adequacy of the Commission’s Report. Since the question was not raised before the District Court it cannot be considered on appeal. The question is an indistinguishable part of the other exceptions.

2

. See Morgan v. United States, 356 F.2d 17 (8th Cir. 1966).
# Jurnalul Oficial C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1029
  doi:10.3000/19771029.CA2014.011.rom |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 11A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 5715 ianuarie 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1029

doi:10.3000/19771029.CA2014.011.rom

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 11A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 5715 ianuarie 2014

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificări |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Rectificare la Anunțul de post vacant pentru funcția de Director executiv al Agenției Europene a Căilor Ferate (AEF), în Franța (Agent temporar — gradul AD 14) (COM/2014/10345) (JO C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

Rectificări

2014/C 011A/01

Rectificare la Anunțul de post vacant pentru funcția de Director executiv al Agenției Europene a Căilor Ferate (AEF), în Franța (Agent temporar — gradul AD 14) (COM/2014/10345) (JO C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(JO C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

LISTA JURNALELOR OFICIALE, SERIA C A, CONCURSURI

În continuare se găsește lista Jurnalelor Oficiale din seria C A care au fost publicate în anul în curs.

Dacă nu există mențiuni speciale, Jurnalele Oficiale s-au publicat în toate versiunile lingvistice.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

Rectificări

| 15.1.2014 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 11/1

---

Rectificare la Anunțul de post vacant pentru funcția de Director executiv al Agenției Europene a Căilor Ferate (AEF), în Franța

(Agent temporar — gradul AD 14)

(COM/2014/10345)

(
  Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene C 6 A din 10 ianuarie 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

La pagina 4, sub „Procedura de depunere a candidaturii”, al treilea paragraf, linkul se va citi:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/”.

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dan Amadori,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

        (2) The information contained inthis Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 25, 2005

|   | "Dan Amadori" (signed) |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Dan Amadori                      |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Alberto BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50232

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, Matthew Craig Brehm, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. ■ Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

George Alberto Beltran, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

George Alberto Beltran appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beltran contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a. defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Paulk,*569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Beltran is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B). Thus, the district court properly denied relief. *See Paulk,*569 F.3d at 1095.

Beltran’s additional claims are not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2). *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
15465

#### CONVERSE COLLEGE v. CITY OF SPARTANBURG *ET AL.*

(23 S. E. (2d), 16)

*336*Messrs. Lyles & Daniel,*of Spartanburg, Counsel for Appellant,

*Messrs. Johnson & Johnson,*of Spartanburg, Counsel for Respondents,

*337November 11, 1942.

December 8, 1942.

PER CURIAM.

, The questions involved in this appeal are the same as those in the case of *Trustees of Wofford College, Appellant, v. City of Spartanburg et al., Respondents.*200 S. C., 315, 23 S. E. (2d), 9, and by the opinion of this Court in the latter, just filed, the decree of the Circuit Court was adopted as the judgment of this Court and ordered reported. The Circuit decree in the instant case is in material respects the same and it therefore need not be reported.

After careful consideration, appellant’s exceptions' are overruled for the reasons stated in the decree, and the judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham and Messrs. Associate Justices Baker, Fisitburne and Stukes concur.

On Petition for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing of the appeal in this cause has been carefully considered and it is denied for the reasons stated in the order on a similar petition in the companion case of *Trustees of Wofford College, Appellant, v. City of Spartanburg et al., Respondents,*200 S. C., 315, 23 S. E. (2d), 9, which order in the latter case is filed concurrently herewith.

As in that case, identical issues are made by the answer in the instant case in similar language, contained in Paragraph 15 of the complaint, which issues were not passed upon by the Circuit Court, whose decree was adopted as the judgment of this Court.

*338It is therefore ordered that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court for its action insofar as these particular matters are concerned, to wit, those designated (b), (e), (d), and (e), subparagraphs of Paragraph 15 of the complaint, and for that purpose only.

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham and Messrs. Associate Justices Baker, Fishburne and Stukes concur.