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

No. 17-10083

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*736Amos Boone, Pro Se

Before: LEAYY, 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 **

Amos Boone appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 118(a)(6), 1153. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Boone’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Boone the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Boone waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Payam KAMBOD, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents.

No. 16-71054

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 23, 2017

Payam Kambod, Pro Se

Agnes M. Rodriguez, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Casey Gardner, Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent Federal Aviation Administration

Agnes M. Rodriguez, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent Michael P. Huerta

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Payam Kambod petitions pro se for review of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (“NTSB”) final order revoking Kambod’s airline pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a), 44709(f), and 46110(a). We re*516view the NTSB’s final order under the arbitrary and capricious standard. *Gilbert v. NTSB,*80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir. 1996). We deny the petition for review.

The NTSB’s determination that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not abuse his discretion in denying Kambod’s requests for a continuance was not arbitrary and capricious because the ALJ had broad discretion to regulate the conduct of the hearing. *See*49 C.F.R. § 821.35(b); *Adm’r v. Lackey,*NTSB Order. No. EA-5419 (2008) (“We have long held that law judges have significant discretion in overseeing administrative hearings and admitting evidence into the record.”).

The NTSB’s determination that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Karabod’s request for a waiver of emergency proceedings was not arbitrary and capricious because delaying the proceedings after the hearing had commenced would have placed an undue burden on the Administrator, court resources, witnesses, and the ALJ. *See*49 C.F.R. § 821.52(d); *Tur v. FAA,*4 F.3d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing waiver of emergency proceedings).

Because Kambod failed to raise any of his other contentions before the NTSB, those contentions are waived. *See*'49 U.S.C. § 46110(d); *Reid v. Engen,*765 F.2d 1457, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (declining to rule on issues not raised before an agency tribunal).

We reject as without merit Kambod’s contentions regarding FAA or ALJ bias.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-35 (c)
CMLTI-2006-FX1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

Cenlar FSB

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (the
"Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify
that:

1.      A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and
including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 and of the
Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing 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 applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period. [If any material failure, specify such
failure and its nature and status.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 28th
day of February 2007.

By: /s/ Jeanne M. Bader
Name: Jeanne M. Bader
Title: Senior Vice President
Director of Loan Administration
Ninth Court of Appeals

BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Ninth Court of Appeals of the State of Texas, 

begun and holden at Beaumont on the 1st day of January, A.D. 2017, present, Chief Justice 

STEVE MCKEITHEN and Justices CHARLES KREGER, HOLLIS HORTON and LEANNE 

JOHNSON.

“Pursuant to and in compliance with an Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, 

dated December 13, 2016, it is ordered that these causes be transferred to the Twelfth Court of 

Appeals, Tyler, Texas, and that the Clerk of this Court certify all orders made in this Court, and 

transmit all records and papers in said cause to the Clerk of the Twelfth Court of Appeals.

09-16-462-CR Jamarcus Markray v. State of Texas

09-16-463-CR Tyaus Wells v. State of Texas

09-16-464-CR Tyaus Wells v. State of Texas

09-16-465-CV Jeremy Wimberly v. Thomas J. Burbank, LLC

09-16-467-CR Cody Jo Roberts v. State of Texas

09-16-469-CR Julian Leonard Haynes v. State of Texas

09-16-471-CR Jerome Marks v. State of Texas

09-16-472-CR Jerome Marks v. State of Texas

09-16-473-CR Jerome Marks v. State of Texas

09-16-477-CV Murray B. Becker v. Mary Ann Becker

09-16-478-CV Pam Miller & Tobe Miller v. Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative

09-16-487-CR Lindsey Marie Peveto v. State of Texas

09-16-488-CV Janet Ceasar v. Glenndell Walker

09-16-490-CR William Stephen Carpenter v. State of Texas

09-16-491-CV In the Matter of J.W.

I, Carol Anne Harley, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of 

Texas, at the City of Beaumont, herein certify that the foregoing is a true copy of this Court’s 

order entered from this Court to the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas at Tyler 

as appears of record in Minute Book Volume 21.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of this Court 

at Beaumont this 4

th of January 2017.

__________________________

Carol Anne Harley

Clerk of the Court
II

★(Star Print)

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 747

To require the President to notify the Congress of certain arms sales to

Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding commercial disputes between

United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia are resolved.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To require the President to notify the Congress of certain

arms sales to Saudi Arabia until certain outstanding

commercial disputes between United States nationals and

the Government of Saudi Arabia are resolved.

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF ARMS SALES.

4 Until the certification under section 2 is submitted

5 to the Congress, section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Con6 trol Act shall be applied to sales to Saudi Arabia by sub7 stituting in the first sentence ‘‘$10,000,000’’ for
2

S 747 IS1S

1 ‘‘$50,000,000’’, ‘‘$560,000,000’’ for ‘‘$200,000,000’’,

2 and ‘‘$2,000,000’’ for ‘‘$14,000,000’’.

3 SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION.

4 Section 1 shall cease to apply if and when the Sec5 retary of States certifies and reports in writing to the Con6 gress that the unpaid claims of American firms against

7 the Government of Saudi Arabia that are described in the

8 June 30, 1993, report by the Secretary of Defense pursu9 ant to section 9140(c) of the Department of Defense Ap10 propriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–396; 106 Stat.

11 1939), including the additional claims noticed by the De12 partment of Commerce on page 2 of that report, have been

13 resolved satisfactorily.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                             ------------------
                                                               1997      1996
                                                             --------  --------
<S>                                                          <C>       <C>
Net Income.................................................. $     62  $     65
Add:
  Interest expense..........................................       72        53
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense..................        1         2
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor......      --        --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income..............       29        37
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries..............      --        --
  Extraordinary loss........................................      --          3
                                                             --------  --------
    Earnings as defined..................................... $    164  $    160
                                                             ========  ========
Interest expense............................................ $     72  $     53
Amortization of capitalized debt expense....................        1         2
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor........      --        --
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries................      --        --
                                                             --------  --------
    Fixed charges as defined................................ $     73  $     55
                                                             ========  ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................     2.25x     2.91x
                                                             ========  ========
</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45822

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRYAN JOHN CURTTRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: December 28, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of four years, for attempted strangulation, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Bryan John Curttright pled guilty to attempted strangulation. I.C. § 18-923(1). In 

exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced 

Curttright to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. 

However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent Curttright to participate in the rider 

program. Curttright appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive. 

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Curttright’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro BENITEZ-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30112

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 3, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed October 23, 2017

*681Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Amy Jaquette, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Myra Sun, Myra Sun Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LIPEZ,** WARDLAW, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *681*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Isidro Benitez-Castillo appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Benitez-Castillo’s hearsay objection to Officer Jensen’s statement that he received information from Daniel Reyes about a meeting with Benitez-Castillo. Officer Jensen’s fleeting statement was not hearsay because it provided necessary background and context for the initiation of his investigation, and therefore its probative value was independent of its veracity. *United States v. Echeverry,*759 F.2d 1451, 1457 (9th Cir. 1985).

2. The district court properly denied Benitez-Castillo’s motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 because sufficient evidence supported Benitez-Castillo’s conviction. The jury found Reyes’ testimony credible, and we must “respect the exclusive province of the fact finder to determine the credibility of witnesses.” *United States v. Archdale,*229 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Reyes’ testimony about Benitez-Castillo orchestrating a methamphetamine transaction was concrete, internally consistent, and uncontradicted. Along with the hundreds of contacts and attempted contacts between Benitez-Castillo and co-conspirators, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. *See United States v. Mincoff,*574 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). (“Express agreement is not required; rather, agreement may be inferred from conduct.”) (citation omitted); *United States v. Lennick,*18 F.3d 814, 818-19 (9th Cir. 1994) (describing elements of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances). Benitez-Castillo’s conviction is neither plainly erroneous nor a manifest miscarriage of justice.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit.Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0748 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32001D0748

**2001/748/EC: Council Decision of 16 October 2001 concerning the signing on behalf of the European Community of the United Nations Protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition, annexed to the Convention against transnational organised crime **

*
Official Journal L 280 , 24/10/2001 P. 0005 - 0005 *

Council Decision

of 16 October 2001

concerning the signing on behalf of the European Community of the United Nations Protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition, annexed to the Convention against transnational organised crime

(2001/748/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 95 and 133 thereof, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The elements of the Protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition which are subject to Community competence were negotiated by the Commission, with the approval of the Council, on behalf of the Community.

(2) The Council also instructed the Commission to negotiate the accession of the Community to the international agreement in question.

(3) Negotiations were successfully concluded and the resulting instrument will be open for signing by the States and, within their areas of competence, by regional organisations for economic integration.

(4) The Member States having stated that they will sign the instrument as soon as possible, and that the European Community should also be able to sign,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

1. The President of the Council is authorised to designate the persons who are empowered, on behalf of the Community, to sign the Protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition annexed to the Convention against transnational organised crime.

2. The text of the Protocol which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution No 55/255 of 8 June 2001 will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on its conclusion by the Community.

Done at Luxembourg, 16 October 2001.

For the Council

The President

D. Reynders
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.3
 
                             AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE
                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                       1996 OMNIBUS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 
    HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION, having adopted the Health Systems Design
Corporation 1996 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 1
effective February 24, 1997 and Amendment No. 2 effective February 9, 1998 (the
"Plan"), hereby amends the Plan, effective as of January 28, 1999, by deleting
the numeral 1,400,000 from the first sentence of Section 4.1 and substituting
the numeral 1,550,000 therefor.
 
                                       15
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0681 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0681

**2002/654/ECSC: Commission Decision of 8 July 2002 on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on trade in certain steel products (notified under document number C(2002) 2489) **

*
Official Journal L 222 , 19/08/2002 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Commission Decision

of 8 July 2002

on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on trade in certain steel products

(notified under document number C(2002) 2489)

(2002/654/ECSC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 95 thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the Consultative Committee,

After the unanimous assent of the Council,

Whereas:

(1) Following the Council Decision of 19 November 2001, the Commission opened negotiations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, culminating in an Agreement concerning trade in certain steel products covered by the European Coal and Steel Community.

(2) The Agreement establishes quantitative limits for the entry into free circulation in the Community of certain steel products for the years 2002 to 2004,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. The Agreement with the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning trade in certain steel products is hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.

2. The text of the Agreement(1) is annexed to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Commission is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the European Coal and Steel Community.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2002.

For the Commission

Pascal Lamy

Member of the Commission

(1) See page 20 of this Official Journal.
EX-35 (f)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Corporate Trust Services
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000

March 20, 2007

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation
85 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for GSAMP Trust 2006-HE7

Per Section 3.22 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)     a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
        calendar year and of its performance under this Agreement, or the
        applicable Subservicing Agreement, as the case may be, has been made
        under such officers' supervision, and

(ii)    to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review the Master
        Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement or
        the applicable Subservicing Agreement, as the case may be, in all
        material respects throughout such year, or, if there has been a failure
        to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying each
        such failure known to such officers and the nature and status thereof.

Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
#### Walter C. Roehl, an Infant, by Helen Roehl, his Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas H. Whelpley et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Argued April 20, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*854
      *James J. McLoughlin, Robert F. White*and *Thomas F. Harrigan*for appellants.

*Abraham Rotwein, Arnold B. Elkind*and *Gerald F. Finley*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.