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

No. 15-50233

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Ryan A. Sausedo, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Owen Lanahan, Attorney, Law Office of John Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

*494Before: 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 **

Charu Brazil Adams appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Adams contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). After Adams was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. *See*U.S.S.G. App. C. Amend. 794; *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. *See id.*Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Adams’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11043-11044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2124]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 218 Under Alternative Site 
Framework; St. Lucie County, Florida

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Board to grant to qualified 
corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or 
adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 
CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of 
zones;
    Whereas, St. Lucie County, Florida, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 
218,

[[Page 11044]]

submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-64-2021, docketed 
September 17, 2021) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a 
service area of St. Lucie, Indian River and Okeechobee Counties, 
Florida, in and adjacent to the Fort Pierce U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection Customs Station, and FTZ 218's existing Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 
would be categorized as magnet sites;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (86 FR 52875-52876, September 23, 2021) and the application 
has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiners' report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 218 under the ASF is approved, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the 
zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would 
terminate authority for Sites 2, 3 and 4 if not activated within five 
years from the month of approval.

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 
Chairperson, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-04117 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
---

Exhibit 99.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fausto Di Trapani, Chief Financial Officer of Asanko Gold
Inc. (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, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 



| | By:    | /s/
      Fausto Di Trapani  
| | ------ | -----------------------------
| |        |                              
| | Name:  | Fausto Di Trapani            
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
| |        | (Principal Financial Officer)
| |        |                              
| |        |                              
| | Date:  | March 15, 2017               

---
#### Jennie J. Holcomb, Resp’t, *v.*The Town of Champion, App’lt.

*Porter & Walts,*for resp’t; *Mullin & Griffin,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur, except Finch, J., absent, and O’Brien, J., taking no part.

Affirming 36 N. Y. State Rep., 759.
**Exhibit10.1**

 

November 15,2007

 

Dear Michael:

 

I am very pleased toextend to you this offer to join the Depomed team as Vice President, ProductDevelopment, reporting to Carl Pelzel, President and CEO.  The rate of pay we offer is $310,000.00annually.  In addition, a one-timesign-on bonus of $25,000.00 will be paid to you within 15 days of your firstday of employment.  This offer ofemployment is valid through Monday, November 19, 2007.

 

Your compensation packageadditionally includes options to acquire 95,000 shares of Depomed Common Stock,at a per-share market price established upon approval by Depomed’s Board ofDirectors.  These options will vest overa four-year period, as provided for in Depomed’s 2004 Equity Plan. The planwill be forwarded to you upon Board approval. Under Depomed’s formal bonus plan, the bonus target at the vicepresident level is 35% of base pay; a copy of the plan is enclosed for yourreview.

 

Also, you will be entitled to our complete benefits package includingparticipation in Depomed’s healthcare insurance and, should you choose toparticipate, a 401(k) retirement plan. During your first year of employment you will be entitled to 14 days ofvacation and to the ten holidays that are observed by the Company.

 

Additionally, as acondition for employment, it will be necessary that you sign a copy of theCompany’s Confidential Information, Secrecy and Invention Agreement. Consistentwith Company policy, the initial three months of employment are consideredintroductory and for the purpose of performance evaluation; employment atDepomed is considered “at will”.  Asrequired by law, you must show proof of citizenship, permanent residency in theU.S. or authorization to work in the U.S. To complete the I-9 form, we ask that you bring copies of thisdocumentation on your first day of employment.

 

Michael, I am verypleased to extend this offer to you, and on behalf of all the Depomed employeesI look forward to having you join us. Oral drug delivery is the focus ofDepomed’s activities and your skills and experience will make you an importantmember of our Company.  If you elect toaccept this offer, please sign and return one copy of this letter to me.  A pre-addressed, envelope is provided foryour convenience.

 

This letter correctlysets forth our agreement.

 
| Sincerely,                          |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| Signed:                             | /s/ Matthew M. Gosling |   |
| Matthew M. Gosling                  |
| Vice President and  General Counsel |
|                                |
| Signed:                             | /s/ Michael Sweeney,  M.D. |   |
| Michael Sweeney, M.D.               |
|                                |
| Dated: 11/19/2007                   |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6782 

To reduce, from 21 years of age to 18 years of age, the minimum age 

at which a person may obtain a handgun from a Federal firearms licensee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. MASSIE (for himself, Ms. BOEBERT, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. 

DESJARLAIS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GOSAR, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Ms. 

HAGEMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. PERRY, and 

Mr. ROY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reduce, from 21 years of age to 18 years of age, the 

minimum age at which a person may obtain a handgun 

from a Federal firearms licensee. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Amendment 

5 For Every Registrable Voter Act’’ or the ‘‘SAFER Voter 

6 Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6782 IH

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM AGE FOR OBTAINING A HANDGUN FROM 

2 A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(b)(1) of title 18, 

4 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, and, if the 

5 firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, 

6 or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual 

7 who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe 

8 is less than twenty-one years of age’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 922(c)(1) 

10 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘, in the case of any 

11 firearm other than a shotgun or a rifle, I am twenty-one 

12 years or more of age, or that, in the case of a shotgun 

13 or a rifle,’’. 

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.


Date: January 6, 2003       By: /s/ Curtis J. Parker
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            Curtis J. Parker
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RFMSI SERIES 2006-SA4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
October 30, 2006,  and the Standard  Terms of Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 30, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among Residential  Funding Securities I, Inc., as company,  Residential  Funding
Company,  LLC,  as master  servicer,  and U.S.  Bank  National  Association,  as
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.


2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
#### McCLINCHEY *v.*CHIHOCKI. SKORINA *v.*SAME.

Automobiles — Mino» Pedestrians — Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury.

Evidence presented in actions for injuries to 14-year-old girl when she was struck by defendant’s automobile while crossing street *held,*to present questions for jury where numerous faets were in dispute, hence trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that defendant was free of negligenee and that plaintiff was eontributorily negligent.

Reference for Points in Headnote

38 Am Jur, Negligenee §§ 344, 347, 348.

Appeal from Wayne; Weideman (Carl M.), J.

Submitted Division 1 May 17, 1968 at Detroit.

(Docket Nos. 3,997, 4,019.)

Decided May 31, 1968.

Rehearing denied July 26, 1968, Leave to appeal denied November 22, 1968.

See 381 Mich 788.

Complaint by Shirley Skorina, as next friend of Shirlene McClinchey, a minor, against Walter R. Chihocki and Diane M. Chihocki for personal injuries sustained in automobile-pedestrian accident. Derivative action by Shirley Skorina for medical expenses. Cases consolidated for trial and on appeal. Directed verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

*Ross <&> Bruff*and *Julius M. Grossbart,*for plaintiffs.

*592*Bouse, Selby, Webber, Dichmson é Shaw,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

These actions involve an automobile accident in which plaintiff Shirlene McClinchey, 14 years old, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle being driven by defendant Diane M. Chihocki. The accident occurred on October 16, 1961, when plaintiff attempted to cross Trenton road in Southgate, Michigan, in a school zone near Davidson Junior high school.'

Following the presentation of evidence in a jury trial, the trial judge granted defendants motion for directed verdict of no cause of action holding, as a matter of law, that defendant was free of negligence and that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Plaintiffs have appealed contending that the trial judge performed the jury’s function in weighing conflicting evidence and deciding disputed factual questions.

We find, on examining the record, numerous facts in dispute and unsettled, *e.g.,*whether plaintiff was walking or running in attempting to cross Trenton road, whether defendant was driving too fast for the conditions present, whether defendant should have seen plaintiff sooner than she claimed to have seen her, whether plaintiff ran into the vehicle or was hit by it, et cetera. It was error for the trial judge to rule, as a matter of law, that defendant was free of negligence and that plaintiff was con-tributorily negligent. There were disputed factual questions present requiring jury determination.

Reversed and remanded for new trial not inconsistent with this opinion.

T. G-. Kavanagh, P. J., and Holbrook and Beer, JJ., concurred.
#### LAGOO and FAOA, Both of Ofu, Plaintiffs v. MAO, a Tulafale of Ofu, Defendant

No. 5-1900

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Faletau”, “Faleola”, “Malama-Aoina” and “Laloifi” in Ofu, Manu’a]

September 27, 1900

TUIMANUA, *Governor of Manua;*and E. W. GURR, *Foreign District Judge*

DECISION

This cause having come on for hearing on this Twenty-seventh day of September, 1900 A.D., at Ofu in the District of Manua in the United States Naval Station, Tutuila, all parties to the action being present in person, and after a lengthy hearing, it is hereby ADJUDGED as follows:—

> 1. That the land known as Faletau situated in Alaufau in Ofu is and shall be the property of Faoa one of the plaintiffs herein, subject to the right of the defendant Mao and his successors in name to have on the land a Samoan House wherein to live and also to have the privilege of using a portion of the fruits of the land as directed by the said Faoa, but the said Mao shall not dispose of his interest in the land in any way whatever without the consent of the said Faoa or the person bearing the name of Faoa for the time being, and further whenever the said Mao shall dwell on the land he shall do so under the protection and rule of the said Faoa and his successors in name.

> *162. That the defendant Mao having cultivated and used the land known as Faleola for a large number of years, viz., beyond the period of Ten Years without any substantial objection having been made against such cultivation and use, he the said Mao, shall have the absolute rule of the land Faleola.

> 3. That the land Malama-Aoina, having been originally planted by the Mao family, but the rule over the said land having been proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be vested in the plaintiff Lagoo and the said Lagoo having protested from time to time against the cultivation and use of the said land by Mao, such land shall be equally divided between the said Lagoo and the said Mao. If the said Lagoo and the said Mao cannot agree upon a division line of the land Malama-Aoina then the land shall be equally divided by some person to be appointed by the Commandant of the United States Naval Station, Tutuila.

> 4. That the land Laloifi is the property of the said Lagoo by inheritance and he and his successors in name shall be the rulers of said land Laloifi.

> 5. That the costs of this action amounting to Twenty-five dollars shall be paid in manner following:—

> Ten dollars by the plaintiff Lagoo, ten dollars by the defendant Mao, and five dollars by the plaintiff Faoa.
#### In the Matter of Thomas J. Curran, as Chairman of the Republican County Committee of New York County, et al., Appellants, against S. Howard Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued October 21,1943,

decided October 22, 1943.

*683
      *Louis J. Lefkotvits, Alfred, J. Bohlinger*and *Lester M. Friedman*for Thomas J. Curran, as Chairman of the Republican County Committee of New York County, and John J. Knewitz, as Chairman of the Republican County Committee of Bronx County, appellants.

*Alfred J. Bohlinger*for George Frankenthaler and David W. Peck, appellants.

*David Halper*for Matthew M. Levy, appellant.

*Solomon G. Stember*for George Salvatore, respondent.

*Robert H. Elder*and *Edward J. Fontana*for Thomas A. Aurelio, respondent.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Seymour B\ Quel*of counsel), for Board of Elections, respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachbr. JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
(12-31-1999) AMD 18 QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      68,617,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,601,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                   874,949
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            87,491,726
<PP&E>                                       8,106,439
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,867,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,368,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,256,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       204,395
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,397,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,368,044
<SALES>                                     58,463,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,463,963
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,147,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            27,832,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,163,876
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,714,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,483,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,449,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>