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

No. 15-10568

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Philip A. Ferrari, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC — Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michael L. Montalvo, Pro Se

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael L. Montalvo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) (1987) (“Rule 35(a)”), declaring him a vexatious litigant, and imposing a pre-filing restriction against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Montalvo contends that the district court erred by denying his sixth motion to *578correct his sentence under Rule 35(a). As we have previously determined, Montalvo has not shown that he is entitled to relief under Rule 35(a). *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) (1987) (court “may correct an illegal sentence at any time”); *United States v. Montalvo,*581 F.3d 1147, 1151-54 (9th Cir. 2009) (Montalvo’s lifetime sentence is authorized by his statute of conviction and his process-based challenges are not properly raised under Rule 35(a)); *see also United States v. Montalvo,*74 F.3d 1247, at *1 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision) (Montalvo’s sentence does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause). We reject Montalvo’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s order of non-recusal.

Montalvo next contends that the district court abused its. discretion in declaring him a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing restriction against him. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the order because it gave Mon-talvo notice and an opportunity to. be heard, developed an adequate record for review, made substantive findings regarding Montalvo’s frivolous litigation history, and tailored the restriction narrowly. *See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,*500 F.3d 1047, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ex10-2060412.htm










Exhibit 10.2


280G EXCESS PAYMENT WAIVER







WHEREAS, MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (the “Parent”) and Mercer Acquisition Corp. (“Merger Sub”) are currently negotiating the terms of a Merger Agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent;







WHEREAS, if the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement is consummated, there will be a “Change in Control” of the Company for purposes of Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”);







WHEREAS, as a result, certain payments (the “Payments”) that Bud M. Owens (“Executive”) is entitled to or may receive as a result of the “Change in Control” may constitute “excess parachute payments” under Section 280G of the Code and may result in the Executive paying an additional excise tax on certain of such Payments;







WHEREAS, the Executive now desires to waive certain of the Payments, but only to the extent such a waiver would provide the Executive with a greater after-tax result than if such Payments had not been waived;







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Executive hereby agrees as follows:







1.          The Executive hereby irrevocably waives any right to receive or retain that portion of the Payments that would equal or exceed three times the Executive’s “base amount,” as defined in Q&A 34 of Treasury Regulation 1.280G-1 (the “280G Excess Payments”) if, as a result of waiving a portion of such Payments, the aggregate after-tax amounts received by the Executive from the Company would be greater than the maximum after-tax amount that could be received by the Executive in the absence of such a waiver.







2.          In the event that 280G Excess Payments are waived pursuant to this waiver, then the portion of the Payments that are cash severance or bonus payments shall be reduced or eliminated so as to avoid having the payment or benefit to the Executive be deemed to be a 280G Excess Payment.

















/s/ Bud M. Owens__________


Bud M. Owens







 


Date: _May 31, 2012________


 







 


Accepted and Agreed:


 







 


MEDTOX Scientific, Inc.


 







 


By:_/s/ Robert A. Rudell________


 


Date:___June 1, 2012__________
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

The undersigned, Solomon Nordine, Chief Financial Officer of Border
Management, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Border Management, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2010 (the 'Report') fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: October 17, 2011

/s/ Solomon Nordine
---------------------
Solomon Nordine
Chief Financial Officer
Border Management, Inc


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6900 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the scope of the SkillBridge 

program of the Department of Defense, to require annual circulation 

of information about such program to certain members of the Armed 

Forces serving on active duty, and to require an annual public awareness 

campaign to inform potential employers of the program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2023 

Ms. SLOTKIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the scope 

of the SkillBridge program of the Department of Defense, to require annual circulation of information about 

such program to certain members of the Armed Forces 

serving on active duty, and to require an annual public 

awareness campaign to inform potential employers of 

the program. 

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 ‘‘Continuing to Serve 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6900 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING SCOPE OF SKILLBRIDGE PROGRAM. 

2 Section 1143(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

3 is amended by inserting ‘‘, which includes private and pub4 lic employers and employers that are organizations de5 scribed in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 

6 of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) 

7 of such Code’’ after ‘‘civilian sector’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EXPANDING PARTICIPATION IN SKILLBRIDGE PRO9 GRAM. 

10 Section 1143(e) of title 10, United States Code, as 

11 amended by section 2, is further amended by adding at 

12 the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(5) For any program under this subsection, the Sec14 retary concerned shall on an annual basis— 

15 ‘‘(A) circulate information about the program, 

16 including information concerning eligibility for the 

17 program and the application process, to members of 

18 the armed forces serving on active duty under the 

19 jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned; and 

20 ‘‘(B) engage in a public awareness campaign to 

21 inform potential employers of program participants 

22 of the existence of the program and explain to such 

23 employers how the program operates, with a focus 

24 on increasing the number and broadening the types 

25 of employers that hire program participants.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         (18,492)  
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,097
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 621,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,007
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   621,138
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (117,947)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (117,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (117,947)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
                


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            114,493
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     941,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,397,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,674,482
<PP&E>                                             65,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                      8,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,437,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,351,415
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           550
<COMMON>                                              389
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,085,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,437,388
<SALES>                                         4,420,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,420,652
<CGS>                                           2,057,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,057,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   126,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (96,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               222,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      222,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .05
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, William J. Velardo, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the
condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;



4. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2004 |  | /s/    WILLIAM J.
VELARDO                               
|                      |  | William J. Velardo President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher NIU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10305

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Niu, Pro Se

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

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

Niu contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Niu’s contention, the district court properly followed the procedure set forth in *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). In so doing, the district court correctly determined that Niu is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline range. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Niu’s contentions that the government breached the plea agreement and that the district court failed to explain the sentence adequately are outside the scope of this proceeding. *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 831,130 S.Ct. 2683.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi*581cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Adina I. Zaharescu, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.

No. 15-55552

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 24, 2017

Adina I. Zaharescu, Pro Se

Joshua Byron Norton, Esquire, Attorney, David Doss Piper, Esquire, Keesal, Young *&*Logan, Long Beach, CA, Brian A Paino, McGlinchey Stafford, Irvine, CA, for Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adina I. Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Za-harescu’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case. 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**828*Thorpe Insulation Co.,*677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zaharescu’s bankruptcy case because the record supports its finding that Zaharescu filed the petition in bad faith. *See*11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); *Marsch v.- Marsch (In re Marsch),*36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court’s finding of “bad faith” and for an abuse of discretion its decision to dismiss a bankruptcy case as filed in “bad faith”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Joseph D. Sylvester, Respondent, *v.*R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Argued June 15, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*556
      *Samuel E. Swiggett*for appellant.

*Abraham M. Fisch*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughbae, Rippey, Lewis, Coeway and Desmoed, JJ. Lehmae, Ch. J., and Thacheb, J., dissent and vote for a new trial on the ground that the instructions concerning the implied authority of a sales-girl to warrant an article, which she has authority to sell, were erroneous.