alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian Matthew BROWN, also known as Downtown, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11759 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 25, 2017

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

James Patrick Whalen, Whalen Law Office, Frisco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brian Matthew Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Brown argues that his within-guideline sentence of 293 months is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Guidelines range was the result of the quantity of drugs involved in Brown’s offense, his possession of firearms in connection with the crime, and his placement in the highest criminal history category. Brown argues that the district court failed to account for his personal history and placed too much weight on his criminal history, the majority of which- was a product of his drug addiction. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The court heard Brown’s mitigating argument that his crimes were largely a byproduct of a troubled childhood and his ongoing drug addiction and gave Brown “the benefit of the doubt” when it decided to sentence him within the recommended guideline range. The district court noted that even the lengthy Guideline sentence it gave might not have been enough given Brown’s unlawful possession of multiple firearms and his extensive history of committing serious offenses. Brown’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that his within-guideline sentence is reasonable. *See United States v. Alvarado,*691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).

Brown has not shown that the district court gave undue weight to the factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. *See United States v. Simpson,*796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### TEXAS & PACIFIC R’Y COMPANY VS. MARTIN.

Appeal from Lamar county.

*Common Carrier-Liability.-*— Where a box of goods were delivered to the common carrier for transportation, and on the way part of them are lost and the remaining portion is in a damaged condition, it is held that by the contract of carriage the carrier was obligated to deliver the box and contents in as good order and condition *443as when received, and the shipper may recover the value of the whole.

*Interest*— Damages.—When goods are lost or destroyed, while in charge of a common carrier, thes measure of damages is the market value of such property at the place of destination, and interest in such case is not ordinarily recoverable. But if there be fraud, delinquency, or injustice on the part of the carrier, interest may be recovered by way of punishment.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
OFFICE OF TXE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gerald C. Mann **AUSTIN. TEXAS** 

Hczorable M. F. Kieke County Attorney Lee county Glddings, Texas
Dear Slrr

:

Artiole 8, Lleetlon l-a, of the State Coqs$it@idn, reada I& part as **r0imit3:** I

*Three Thousand Dollars (#3,000.00) of ‘tb& aeSeaadb taxable vaiue of all reeidenoe homesteads as dew deffned by law shall be.exempt from all taxation for all Stats purposes; . . .* : ; . ,, .;#&icle 16, C.~eo. 50. of the State Constitution, exempts homesteads frox toraed sale, with certain exoeptlone, one of NJilCilis for taxes. Article 1.6,Sec. 51, dsrines ho&e8teade, and ;mder the definition given we have two c~fises of homesteads entitied to such exemption fro&z foroed sale, to-wit: residenoe horesteeds uAd b;lsinesa boriIeStead8, each 60 well rOOogniZsd in law . 86 t0 Aced A0 difJOU8siOA.

UAtil the **8dOptiOA** of **%OtiOA** l-a, of i.rtiole '8,at the election OA A?lit.ust 26, 19953, both Ohdi8eS oi hoSestee Wsrq; ctubject 

### to tsxetion 

### for :Xatepurposes. The examptlan extendedb7 said sec. l-a is w erellidenoew bammton&8 ady ud abusiM88a homwteds are #tillsubject to 

### theSt&e tu.

'. .<. It $8 qulh oloar that adjaoontlota -7 ba rmldaaee

homeotfa8aprap8rtyin part mabpstier8hoaeclm& la part. q.lL &amwwger Lumber co. v. Delawm, 106 8.w. (8) 551.. It le liked*e osrtdn thst lena Maot1tuthg a part or a rea&+oe 

## ~teoa ray be appropriatedto a 

### dm0ra MOandlose it8 

### obanokr u . suoh. Blum f. Rqpl-0, ls 8. 1. lls, sup. at.;women v* qohr, 64 3. .w.";81%gy ; R&her. reer 8, w. 894; LlQ8ooBib v. Aaa88ou LumberOo., . . .

For thq ptupom of 

### tbi8 inqoiry,it is krteri8l whether the aftlce bullA&g a8 awhala io iapremxedwlth the eIuhZYbOt8r oi 

### a **bu8lne88** 

### hoaaestesdthe ohrJ queatim **being** ubether it b8r lost its aharaatsra8 a ~esiaesw~homstaad.

T&d re8166noaand do %ueh of the gro\ind a. id.Still~U6d as a part thereofand ham not been 

### appropriated to the uao OS the officebuild%.ng

is antitled.tothe home&ma& exemptionfrom taxatiOA iOr st8te pUrpO888. The otiioebuilding snilland appropriated **to it8**  **We :8**  

### 8ubJsett0 the tax. 

### ?OurP+*rytruly

Glenn R. Lerie **AaSiSt8.d**
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6852 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New York, 

as a National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6852 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holcombe Rucker Park 

3 National Commemorative Site Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—Holcombe Rucker Park, in Har6 lem, New York, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Holcombe 

7 Rucker Park National Commemorative Site’’ (referred to 

8 in this section as the ‘‘Commemorative Site’’). 

9 (b) ADMINISTRATION.— 

10 (1) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Sec11 retary of the Interior may enter into cooperative 

12 agreements with appropriate public or private enti13 ties, including the Mayor of New York City or the 

14 Mayor’s designee, for interpretive and educational 

15 purposes related to the Commemorative Site, includ16 ing installing a plaque, interpretive exhibit, or other 

17 marker, as appropriate, at the Commemorative Site, 

18 with the written consent of the owner of the Com19 memorative Site, to memorialize the achievements of 

20 Holcombe Rucker and to provide recognition of the 

21 historic role of Holcombe Rucker Park in the devel22 opment of the game of basketball and of many of its 

23 most talented players. 

24 (2) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The Com25 memorative Site shall not be a unit of the National 

26 Park System. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6852 RFS

1 (3) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act— 

2 (A) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

3 to interfere with the rights of any person with 

4 respect to private property or any local zoning 

5 ordinance or land use plan of the State of New 

6 York or any political subdivision thereof, includ7 ing prohibiting any actions that may otherwise 

8 be taken by a property owner (including any 

9 owner of the Commemorative Site) with respect 

10 to the property of the owner; 

11 (B) affects the administration of the Com12 memorative Site by New York City or the State 

13 of New York; or 

14 (C) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

15 to acquire land or interests in land through 

16 condemnation or otherwise. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Filed May *4,*1891.

#### Alston Gerry *et al.,*App’lts, *v.*Louis Cattabury *et al.,*Resp’ts.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying motion to continue injunction.

*L. Lafiin Kellogg,*for app’lts; *Arthur C. Butts,*for resp’ts.

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs to abide event.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mattie Jones, individually and as representative of the Estate of Albin
Jones, deceased v. Harris County, Phillips Edison Grocery Center Operating Partnership I, L. P., and Virgata Property Company, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00700

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 48838

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

On April 19, 2022, during oral argument in the above

- referenced appeal , the Court ordered that the parties provide supplemental briefing of no more than 3000 words on the issue of whether

the provisions of the Texas Human Resources Code cited by appellee Harris County deprive the courts of subject

- matter jurisdiction over th is dispute. See T EX

. H UM

. R ES

. C ODE § 121.004. The Court ordered that Harris County’s supplemental brief was due within seven days of the oral argument, and that appellant Mattie Jones’s response was due seven days after the filing of Harris County’s suppl emental brief.

The Court would also like the parties to identify in their supplemental briefing any place

in the appellate record where there is an indication that (1) sidewalks were present at the subject

intersection or (2) Alvin Jones entered the cross walk at the subject intersection from a sidewalk

and was attempting to exit the crosswalk to another sidewalk without a curb ramp.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s Amparo Guerra

Acting for the Court

D ate: April 20, 2022

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.
----

|          | BDO      Forte Audit | Cim:                            | 1126      Budapest, Nagy Jeno u 10. |
|-------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Konyvvizsgalo      Kft. | Postafiok:           | 1531      Budapest, Pf. 83.     |
|                    | Telefon:             | (+36-1)      235-3010, 235-3090 |
|                    | Telefax:             | (+36-1)      266-6438           |
|                    | E-mail:              | office@bdo.hu                   |
|                    | Honlap:              | www.bdo.hu                      |

|      /s/ Ferenc Baumgartner                 |                                                                  |      /s/ Andras Nagy |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Ferenc      BaumgartnerGeneral      ManagerBDO      Forte Audit Ltd. | Andras      NagyRegistered      AuditorBDO      Forte Audit Ltd. |

| Fovarosi      Birosag mint Cegbirosag | cegjegyzekszam:      Cg. 01-09-867785 | adoszam:      13682738-2-43 |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

----
#### IN RE: Peli Popovich HUNT, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, Appellant, v. Elissa D. Miller; Peter P. Anderson, Appellees.

No. 16-56784

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

*588Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se

Daniel A. Lev, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Elissa D. Miller

Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter P. Anderson

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *588*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to pay mediation costs from estate funds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. *In re Thorpe Insulation Co.,*677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the bankruptcy court erred in approving the chapter trustee’s motion for disbursement of estate funds to pay certain mediation costs. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
of 2002, I, Todd Noble, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced
ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of
my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:
June 7, 2005
 
 /s/Todd
D. Noble
 Todd D.
Noble, Chief Financial Officer
#### Gerald J. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. L. MONTGOMEREY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56319

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Gerald J. Wilson, Pro Se

Sylvie Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald J. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm,

In his opening brief, Wilson failed to challenge any of the district court’s grounds for dismissal of the operative complaint, and therefore Wilson waived any such challenge. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); *Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party m its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We reject as without merit Wilson’s contentions regarding his alleged failure to receive the magistrate’s report and recommendation.

Wilson’s request for appointment of counsel and request for sanctions, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied. Wilson’s request for in forma pauperis status, set forth in his reply brief, is denied as unnecessary.

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. Jesus Vallejo HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Chico, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50088

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

L, Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chelsea Norell, Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Todd Merrill, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sean Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lawrence Jay Litman, Attorney, Litman Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Vallejo Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C, § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court misapplied the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, by failing to compare him to all of his co-participants in the criminal scheme. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

The record reflects that the court considered Hernandez’s argument that he was *739less culpable than his three co-defendants, the unidentified seller, and the buyer. The court nevertheless determined that Hernandez had failed to show that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). This was the proper legal analysis. Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez’s central role in orchestrating the sale of a large quantity of methamphetamine, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hernandez was not a minor participant. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
A project of the Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions

and the San Francisco Estuary Institute

Produced with support from:

Home

Pacific Coast Exotic Species

Use of Images

Contact Us

Brown Seaweeds

Sponges

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

1 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Anemones

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

2 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Worms

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

3 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Snails

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

4 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

5 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Clams, Mussels, etc.

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

6 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Barnacles, Crabs, Etc.

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

7 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Moss Animals

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

8 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

9 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Sea Squirts

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

10 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
Cite this Guide as: Cohen, Andrew N. 2011. The Exotics Guide: Non-native Marine Species of the North

American Pacific Coast. Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, Richmond, CA, and San Francisco

Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. Revised September 2011. http://www.exoticsguide.org

The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/

11 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
---

EXHIBIT 99.11

VIA EDGAR

|TO: | United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                       
|Re: | Asanko Gold Inc. (the
      "Company")                
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                            
|    | Consent of Expert                                     

This consent is provided in connection with the Company's
annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2016, and
any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Annual Report
incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information
Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Information
Form), and the Managements Discussion and Analysis for the year ended
December 31, 2016 (the MD&A).

I, Thomas K. Obiri-Yeboah, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:

- the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation
  of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and
  scientific nature related to the Companys Asanko Gold Mine, contained in the
  Annual Information Form;
- the use of my name and the disclosure of me as the person responsible for
  verifying of certain scientific and technical information contained in the
  MD&A in respect of the Asanko Gold Mine; and
- the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the
  Annual Report.



Dated March 15, 2017



|/s/ Thomas K.
      Obiri-Yeboah | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|Thomas K. Obiri-Yeboah           | 
|B. Sc Eng (Mining), Pr Eng       | 
|DRA Mining (Pty) Ltd.            | 

---
#### In the Matter of New York State Guernsey Breeders’ Co-operative, Inc., Respondent, against C. Chester Du Mond, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Appellant.

Submitted October 18, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*Irving G. Subís*and *Merritt A. Switzer*for motion.

*Robert G. Blabey*and *Donald L. Brush*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.