alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel LOPEZ-MORALES, a.k.a. Victor Manuel Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 14-10564, 14-10565

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael L. Burke, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defenders Office (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, 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 **

In these consolidated appeals, Victor Manuel Lopez-Morales appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C, § 1326, as well as the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Morales contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that his cultural assimilation warranted a below-Guidelines sentence, and by referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3653(a) at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. 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. The record reflects that the district court considered Lopez-Morales’s argument concerning his assimilation, and adequately explained the sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, there is no indication that the court committed plain error by mentioning section 3553(a).

Lopez-Morales also contends that his sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentences are substantively reasonable in *614light of the applicable sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez-Morales’s criminal history, his multiple prior removals, and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Re-Using	Produced	Water

## What	is	this	Idea?

• Revenue	to	Offset	Direct	Disposal	Costs • No	Operator	Investment • Minimal	Impact	on	Opera9ons • U9lize	Proven	Technology	with	Iofina	Proprietary	Systems • Partnering What	Do	We	Need? • Iodine	Concentra9ons • Volume	of	Brine	Water

2Iodophors	10% Biocides	2% Fluoro	deriva9ves	6% Nylon	4% Human	nutri9on	4%

Contrast	media	22%

Animal	nutri9on	10% LCDs	10% Pharmaceu9cals	14% Other	18%

3 

## Why	is	Iodine	Important Growing	Demand

• Mul9ple	Industries	and Products	Require	Iodine • 2012	produc9on	of 28,700	mt • Iodine	Deriva9ves Market	Worth	$5-6.5bn • Iodine	Demand	is Forecast	to	Grow	3%-5% per	Year

*Source:	Iofina	plc4 

## Where	is	Iodine	produced A	Valuable	Resource

Source:	SQM	,	ISE,	Kanto	and	Iofina The	global	iodine	supply	is	dominated	and	controlled	by	two	countries: Chile	and	Japan

58 % 1. 5.

2. 3. 4. 2012	Iodine	ProducGon (28,700	MT) 5%

58% 2% 21% 14%
USA Chile Others Japan Recycling

Source:	Iofina plc

## What	Is	In	It	For	Me?

• Example:	Oklahoma	Injec9on	Site

– Brine	Water		10,000	to	30,000 bwpd

– Iodine		100	to	200	ppm

– Yields	150	to	1,000	kg	of	elemental	iodine • Impact	on	Opera9ons

– Minimal • Operator	Off-Set

– Approximately	$0.02	to	$0.06	per	Barrel 56 

## Why	extract	Iodine	from	Brine	Water?

• Revenue	to	Off-Set	Direct	Disposal Expense 

## Revenue

• Iofina	Pays	100%	of	CAPEX Installa9on	and	Support 

## Turnkey Solu9on
• Proven	Technology	U9lizing Proprietary	Systems	in	Various Oilfield	Environments 

## Technology

• Minimal	Impact	on	Exis9ng Opera9ons;	Operates	In-Line	with Exis9ng	Field	Systems 

## Opera9ons

• Major	Independent	Oil	&	Gas Producers,	Salt	Water	Disposal	and Water	Treatment	Companies 

## Partnering

## Benefits	of	Partnering	with	Iofina

• Reduce	Your	Opera9ng	Expense • No	Operator	Investment • Minimal	Impact	on	Opera9ons • Technology	Leaders	in	Iodine • Good	Partner

78 

## Who	Is	Iofina?
• Iodine	Extrac9on	from		Brine Streams • Speciality	Chemical	Division • Recycling	of	Iodine • Major	Investors • Black	Rock,	JP	Morgan, Stena	Investment,	BT Pension • Listed	on	London	AIM	Exchange • Current	Market	Cap	$300	mm • Trades	1	mm	shares	a	day 

## Iofina plc Specialized Iodine Deriva9ves

Recycling	of Iodine Mid-stream Iodine Produc9on	of

Third	Party Brine

## Who	Is	Iofina	Resources? • Contracts	with	Major	Independent		Oil	&	Gas	Producers and	Salt	Water	Disposal	(SWD)	Companies • Two	Plants	Currently	Opera9ng

– Texas	and	Oklahoma • Four	Addi9onal	Plants	Planned	in	2013

9

# Iofina	plc Contact	Informa9on: Forest	Dorn Office:		303-222-1215	x	307 Cell:		303-382-6653 Email:		forest@iofina.com

10
#### Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. P. J. DONOVAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, Bureau of Employee’s Compensation of the Seventh Compensation District et al., Appellees.

No. 22224.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1966.

*826Frank S. Bruno, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Edward P. Jerry, Frederick W. Veters, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., for appellee Donovan. Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Alfred H. Myers, George M. Lilly, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Labor, of counsel.

Merrit & Jerry, New Orleans, La., for appellees, Florio and American Mutual Liability Ins. Co.

Before JONES and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 Although counsel for the appellant strongly urges that this is something more than a review of an award by the Deputy Commissioner in a longshoreman’s compensation case by the test of whether the award is supported by the record considered as a whole, it is our conclusion that such is the test which must be applied. The district court had the matter before it on a petition for review. It is the view of this Court that the facts as recited by the district court are correctly stated in its decision and that the principles which it has announced are sound. Williams v. Donovan, D.C.E.D.La.1964, 234 F.Supp. 135. It follows that, applying those principles, the award of the Commissioner and the judgment of the district court should be and are

Affirmed.
#### Wilson v. The Hawkeye Insurance Company.

Appeal: jurisdiction : judgment reduced below one hundred dollars BY remittitur. Where plaintiff’s demand and the verdict in his favor were both for more than one hundred dollars, but before judgment he amended his petition, against defendant’s objection, so as to claim only $99.99, and remitted from the verdict all in excess of that amount, *held,*on an appeal by defendant, that only $99.99 was involved, and that this court had no jurisdiction in the absence of questions certified by the trial court, (Compare *Bateman v. Sisson, 70*Iowa, 518 ; *Milner v. Gross,*66 Iowa, 252.) [Reed, J., dissenting.]

*Appeal from Sae District Court.*—■ I-Ion. J. H. Macombeb, Judge.

Filed, March 12, 1888.

Action on a policy of insurance against damages to work-horses, caused by high winds or lightning.' Trial by jury. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

*Geo. It. Sanderson,*for appellant.

*B. It. Duffie,*for appellee.

Servers, C. J.

The plaintiff, in his petition, claimed to recover one hundred and fifty dollars, and the jury found that he was only entitled to $135.63. A motion for- a new trial was filed by the defendant, which was overruled on the twenty-fourth day of May, 1887, and afterwards, on the same day, the plaintiff asked leave to file a paper designated an “ amendment to petition, and offer to remit from verdict,” which is in the following words : “.Comes now the plaintiff above named, and amends .his petition, and amendment to petition filed by him,- by withdrawing from the same all claims for damage against the defendant in excess of *213$99.99, and he also offers to remit from the verdict of the jury returned herein in-his favor all amount found due him in excess of said sum of $99.99, and asks that judgment be rendered on said verdict for $99.99 only.” The defendant at the time objected to the filing of said paper, but the objection was overruled. Afterwards, on the same day, the defendant moved to strike the same from the files, but this was overruled. On the same day, but afterwards, judgment was rendered on the verdict for $99.99, and in June afterwards this appeal was taken. Counsel for plaintiff insist, as the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, is less than one hundred dollars, and, therefore, as the trial judge has not certified any questions of law upon which it is deemed desirable to have the opinion of this court, that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal. Code,' sec. 3173. Counsel cite and rely on *Bateman v. Sisson,*70 Iowa, 518, and *Milner v. Gross,*66 Iowa, 252, and we are unable to distinguish this case from those cited upon any logical . ground, and, therefore, this appeal must be

Dismissed.

Reed, J., dissenting.
#### Samuel M. OPPER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANCOCK SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 38, Docket 30434.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 4, 1966.

Decided Oct. 5, 1966.

*158Edward Labaton, New York City (Kramer, Bandler & Labaton, Sidney Kramer, and Edward Labaton, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Lewis Perkiss, New York City (Kimmelman & Perkiss, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In action by Connecticut customer against New York broker-dealer for damages for failure to carry out contract for sale of stock, based on New York law and the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j, 78o), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, Judge, entered judgment for plaintiff. 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966). We find no error and in open court we have affirmed the judgment.

The principal attacks on appeal are on the finding of a contract for a sale at market. The court credited the testimony of plaintiff, which amply supports the finding. Credibility is for determination by the trier. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F. 2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1949). Failure to carry out the order while disposing of its own similar stock was not only actionable under the contract but also a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. See Barnett v. United States, 319 F.2d 340, 344, 345 (8th Cir. 1963). As such, it was actionable in a private suit. Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1951). The proof of sales of its own stock by defendant constituted a proper criterion for measuring damages, and recovery was rightly allowed for the damages proved, although higher in amount than the original *ad damnum.*

The claim of bias on the part of the trial judge is so lacking in substance as not to require comment. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.16 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, 2013, 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, 2013 (the Annual Information Form). I, Jeff Price, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:  · the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of the mining geotechnical information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Companys Obotan Gold Project, Ghana, contained in the Annual Information Form, and  · the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.  Dated March 28, 2014  /s/ Jeff PriceJeff PricePhD, FAusIMM(CP), FGS, MIE(Aust)Principal Consultant (Geotechnical Engineering)
SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FROM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1997
<CASH>                                            9220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   224955
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7882
<INVENTORY>                                     137058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                372262
<PP&E>                                          204793
<DEPRECIATION>                                   56220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  776284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           302870
<BONDS>                                         167809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      211674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    776284
<SALES>                                         467115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                467115
<CGS>                                           344163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   344163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               12244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5066
<INCOME-TAX>                                       915
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
11

- i CHAPTER 11. LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11

- 1 11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11

- 111

- 1 CHAPTER 11. LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life

- cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts of standards on identifiable group s , such as different consumer populations or business types that may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard level. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the U.S Department of Energy ( DOE ) will analyze the LCCs and payback periods ( PBPs ) for consumer s that fall into such groups. The analysis will determine whether any particular group of consumers would be adversely affected by any of the candidate standard levels ( C SLs)

. Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE plans to examine variations in energy pric es and energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard for consumer sub

- populations. As described in c hapter 8 of the preliminary technical support document , the preliminary LCC analysis includes various consumer types who use metal halide lamp fixture s . This analysis includes consumers purchasing systems in different sectors and for different building types.

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

For metal halide lamp fixture s , DOE will estimate LCC savings and PBP s for consumers in the commercial

, industrial

, and outdoor stationary sectors. DOE will also analyze the LCC effects on consumers living in or operating different buildings in the commercial and industrial
sectors. In addition, DOE will analyze effects on consumers in different regions of the country.

In the LCC subgroup analysis, DOE will examine a variety of consumer sub

- populations. This analysis will determine whether any particular group of consumers would be adversely affected by any of the C SLs

.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0580 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0580

**2001/580/EC: Commission Decision of 18 July 2001 on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Greece pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2001) 1962) **

*
Official Journal L 208 , 01/08/2001 P. 0044 - 0044 *

Commission Decision

of 18 July 2001

on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Greece pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

(notified under document number C(2001) 1962)

(Only the Greek text is authentic)

(2001/580/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the presentation of an inventory of wine production potential. Such an inventory must be compiled before unlawfully planted areas can be regularised, planting rights increased and support granted for restructuring and conversion.

(2) Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential(3), lays down the degree to which the information in the inventory is to be broken down.

(3) By letter of 25 June 2001 Greece sent the Commission the information specified in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. On examination, that information shows that Greece has indeed compiled the inventory.

(4) This Decision does not imply any recognition by the Commission that the information included in the inventory is accurate or that the legislation referred to in the inventory is compatible with Community law. It does not prejudge any decision that the Commission may take with regard to those points.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission hereby notes that Greece has compiled the inventory referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000, p. 1.
#### Eric Matthew GAUTREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1628

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 21, 2017

John 0. Goss, GOSS AND FENTRESS, PLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Gregg W. Marsano, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Virginia L. Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Matthew Gautreau appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Gautreau’s application for disability benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. *Mascio v. Colvin,*780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” *Johnson v. Barnhart,*434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[wjhere conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted).

Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gautreau v. Colvin,*No. 2:15-cv-00081-RBS-DEM, 2016 WL 1298122 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 31, 2016; entered Apr. 1, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Wayne TIMMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4512

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

John Keating Wiles, CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER *&*BRYAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Donald R. Pender, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Wayne Timms appeals his conviction for possession of contraband in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 (2012). Timms contends that his conviction was improper, because as a civil detainee under the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2012), he was not an “inmate” under the meaning of § 1791. Timms argues that “inmates” are held in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, while Adam Walsh detainees are in the custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.

Section 1791 prohibits an “inmate of a prison” from possessing a prohibited object. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). While “inmate” is not specifically defined, “prison” is defined as “a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General.” 18 U.S.C. § 1791(d)(4). Adam Walsh Act detainees are committed to the custody of the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C, § 4248(d). Thus, we find that Timms is an inmate under the meaning of § 1791. *See*28 C.F.R. § 500.1(c) (including “detainees” and other “persons held” in the definition of “inmate” in Bureau of Prisons regulation); *see also United States v. Savage,*737 F.3d 304, 309 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that, “for purposes of § 4248, there is no substantive difference between vesting legal custody in the Attorney General and legal custody in the [Bureau of Prisons]”).

Accordingly, we affirm Timms’ conviction. 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.

*AFFIRMED*