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

No. 16-10194

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Nancy M. Olson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

■ Randall John Roske, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Randall J Roske, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

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 **

Sharron Crabb appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crabb contends that the prosecution violated *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose a publicly available 2009 *499study regarding the possibility of false positive tests among persistent marijuana users. Because Crabb did not raise this claim in the district court, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Guzman-Padilla,*573 F.3d 865, 890 (9th Cir. 2009).

Assuming without deciding that *Brady*applies in probation revocation proceedings, Crabb cannot establish plain error. The record reflects that Crabb accessed the study at issue on a public website. Therefore, she cannot show any suppression by the government. *See United States v. Aichele,*941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1991). Even if Crabb could show that the report was suppressed, she has not shown that there was a reasonable probability of a different result if the report had been produced. *See Kyles v. Whitley,*514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). The record reflects that the district judge considered Crabb’s arguments about the possible effect of her previous heavy marijuana use on her test results, and was persuaded that the report submitted by the government established Crabb’s reuse of marijuana in violation of her conditions of probation.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50259

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Rosario Torres Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*490Joshua J. Jones, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Trujillo-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Trujillo-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for rejecting his argument for a below-Guidelines sentence in light of the then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Trujillo-Rodriguez argued at length in his sentencing memorandum and during the sentencing hearing that he should receive a lower sentence because, under the amendment that would take effect just a few months after his sentencing, he would be subject to a lower Guidelines range. The record reflects that the court considered these arguments, but did not believe that they supported a downward variance. Rather, the court explained that a mid-range sentence was warranted in light of the Í8 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Trujillo-Rodriguez’s offense and his prior crime. While the court might have said more, its failure to do so in this case did not affect Trujillo-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
exh4-1.htm




Exhibit 4.1













	
Number

	  	
Shares


	  	
ALTONA RESOURCES INC.

	  
	  	
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

	  
	  	
200,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK AUTHORIZED,

	  
	  	
$0.00001 PAR VALUE

	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	
CUSIP _______


	  	  	
SEE REVERSE


	  	  	
FOR


	
This

	  	
CERTAIN


	
certifies

	  	
DEFINITIONS


	
that

	  	  
	
is the owner of

	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE

	  
	  	
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF

	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	
ALTONA RESOURCES INC.

	  
	  	
transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly

	  
	  	
authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly

	  
	  	
endorsed.  This certificate and the shares represented hereby

	  
	  	
are subject to the laws of the State of Nevada, and to the

	  
	  	
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation,

	  
	  	
as now or hereafter amended.  This certificate is not valid

	  
	  	
unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent.  WITNESS

	  
	  	
the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signature

	  
	  	
of its duly authorized officers

	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
PRESIDENT

	
[SEAL]

	
SECRETARY


















  





  











  








The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.








	
TEN COM

	
as tenants in common

	
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT

	  	
Custodian

	  
	
TEN ENT

	
as tenants by the entireties

	  	
(Cust)

	  	
(Minor)


	
JT TEN

	
as joint tenants with the right of

	  	
Act

	  
	  	
survivorship and not as tenants

	  	  	
(State)


	  	
in common

	  	  	  










Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.








	
For value received,

	  	
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


	  	
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	  
	  	
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	  
	  
	  
	
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)


	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	
shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


	  
	
                                                                                                                                                                                                             ,


	
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


	  
	
Dated _______________________


	  
	
X


	
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.  THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions)






















SIGNATURE GUARANTEED:



























TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
#### Adrien NORMIL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73273

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

David Belaire Landry, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of David Landry, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Arthur Leonid Rabin, Trial Attorney, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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, Washington, DC, for Respondent

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 **

Adrien Normil’s motion to remand proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.

Normil, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal from an immigration *498judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Normil’s contentions as to the preparation of his asylum application and the IJ’s denial of a continuance. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination in light of the inconsistencies surrounding the single incident of physical harm that Nor-mil allegedly suffered in Haiti. *See Shrestha,*593 F.3d at 1047; *Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “inconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Normil’s asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

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

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000





<S>                                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                           MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                      24,154
<SECURITIES>                                                                13,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                                               24,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                            68,711
<PP&E>                                                                      16,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             113,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                       18,200
<BONDS>                                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                  93,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                               113,086
<SALES>                                                                     20,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            20,348
<CGS>                                                                        7,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                7,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                            14,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                            (344)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                             (1,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  (191)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                           (963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 463
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                  (500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                (0.04)


</TABLE>
Essential Air Service At Thief River Falls MN

OST-2001-10642 January 27, 2014 

### -" 1"1 

# '8 A L.I_ -"". '"-\ 

# '1:

# 41
It hascome to the attention of TransportAzumah that several EASmarkets will be experiencing an interruption in service beginning atthe end of this week. The inventory for Thief River FallsMN iszeroed out inthe Great Lakes reservations system after Friday, January 31, 2014. Service interruptions in EAS communities tend to destroy the passenger baseof the markets involved. This leads to numerous bid periods in which the community exceeds $200 per passenger in subsidy and puts them under constant risk of being eliminated from the program.
Inorder to maintain the passenger base atthese communities, TransportAzumah proposes the implementation of emergency interim busservice. These emergency contracts would be issued under the Department's discretionary authority for an interim period of three months while markets without a new carrier are bid. TransportAzumah hasthe ability to implement these services beginning February 1, 2014 using midsized and full sized long distance coaches. During the interim period, there would be no fare charged on these services.
The following markets would receive emergency interim bus service beginning February 1: TransportAzumah Emergency Interim BusService Market Hub 1Round TripsPerDay 13 Month Subsidy Thief River FallsMN MSP 12 

## I $442,864 TransportAzumah recognizes that this program may require the communities to opt into the alternate EASprogram for ashort period oftime. Aswith past agreements, communities should be aware that opting into the alternate EASprogram isnot permanent. Inthis situation, the Department could allow communities to opt into the alternate EASprogram only during the period of air service hiatus. We believe that three months issufficient for motivated air carriers to submit a bid to restore air service to these comm.unities. Sample bus schedules are provided below. They are subject to change: 

### Thief River Falls MN - MSP Thief River Falls MN 

### >MSP(Daily) Thief River Falls MN 600a 1200p MSP 1130a 530p MSP

### >Thief River Falls MN (Daily) MSP 1230p 730p Thief River FallsMN 600p 100a
In light ofthe short timeframe available to avoid uninterrupted service, we request expedited consideration of our request. Due to the length of this contract, we will also need modified payment arrangements. Please contact usassoon aspossible sothat we can start on orjust after February 1, 2014.

Contact: Joel Anabilah-Azumah, jazumah@transportazumah.com. 347-927-07S0
499 A.2d 935

#### In the Matter of the Application of J.L.L. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland.

Misc. No. 27

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 7, 1985.

Henry R. Lord, Baltimore, for appellant.

*395No arguments for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

The Court having considered the unfavorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners and the favorable recommendation of the Character Committee of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, and

The Court having ordered that a hearing be held to allow J.L.L. to show cause why the unfavorable recommendation of the Board should be rejected and the applicant, J.L.L., be admitted to the Bar of Maryland, and

The Court having conducted a hearing and having made an independent evaluation of the applicant’s present moral character based upon the records made by the Character Committee and the Board and supplemented by the applicant, Rule 4c of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland; *In Re Application of Allan S.,*282 Md. 683, 691, 387 A.2d 271 (1978), and having considered the fact that the burden rests at all times upon the applicant to prove her good moral character, *In Re Application of G.L.S.,*292 Md. 378, 398, 439 A.2d 1107 (1982), and

A majority of the Court having concluded that J.L.L. has established present good moral character and fitness to be admitted to the Bar of this State, it is this 7th day of November, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that J.L.L. be admitted to the Bar of Maryland upon taking the oath prescribed by the statute, subject only to the filing of an updating oath as to character information.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GARCIA-ARAMBULO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1389

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

November 29, 2016

Mark J. Barrett, Michael Conrad Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ryan Melcher, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Jose Luis Garcia-Arambulo pled guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), illegal reentry of a previously deported alien following a felony conviction, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. As part of his plea agreement, Garcia-Arambulo waived his right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded the maximum penalty provided by statute or the guideline range for an offense level of 9, or unless the government appealed the sentence. None of these happened, but Garcia-Arambulo appealed his sentence anyway.

The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v.*Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). This requires us to determine “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” *Id,*at 1325. In response to the government’s motion, Garcia-Arambulo, through counsel, “concedes that, under the standard announced in *[Hahn],*the plea agreement’s appeal waiver is enforceable with respect to this direct appeal.” Resp. to Mot. to Enforce Appeal Waiver at 1 (Nov. 17,2016).

Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we conclude Gareia-Arambulo’s appeal waiver is enforceable. We therefore grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal.

*

 his panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lamont LLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6114

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 5, 2017

*712Cody James Groeber, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Taylor Austin, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lamont Lloyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lloyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lloyd’s motion for 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*
a.1



    body {
      color:#000000;
      background-color:#FFFFFF;
    }
    a  { color:#0000FF; }
    a:visited { color:#800080; }
    a:hover { color:#008000; }
    a:active { color:#FF0000; }
    -->

  
  

RESIGNATION AS PRESIDENT, SECRETARY AND TREASURER



	Pursuant to the Bylaws of PyroTec, Inc. (the "Corporation"), I am hereby submitting my resignation as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Corporation effective immediately.


SUBMITTED:



/s/ P. Desmond Brunton
	
P. Desmond Brunton



Dated:  May 15, 2012