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

No. 15-51050 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 3, 2017

Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Roy Lee Wells, Jr., Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roy Lee Wells, Jr., federal prisoner # 40052-080, was sentenced in 1988 under *375the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 480 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Wells filed a motion invoking *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause, and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied, and Wells appealed;

Wells’s brief requests a certificate of appealability (COA), which must issue for this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction. *Gonzalez v. Thaler,*565 U.S. 134, 142, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (§-2254 case). Wells’s contention that *Johnson*applies retroactively and implicates the constitutionality of his conviction under the ACCA satisfies the threshold COA standard. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Nevertheless, we agree with the Government that Wells’s claims are ultimately without merit in light of his three Texas controlled substance offenses. These convictions are ACCA predicates separate from residual clause offenses. *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii); *United States v. Vickers,*540 F.3d 356, 363-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Further briefing is therefore unnecessary. *See Whitehead v. Johnson,*157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

For these reasons, we GRANT Wells a COA; we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM; we DENY as unnecessary the Government’s alternative request for additional time to file a brief; and we DENY Wells’s motion to dismiss the indictment as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Gensym Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen D. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                           
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                    | 
|Dated: May 13, 2004 |  | /s/    Stephen D. Allison                 
|                    |  | Stephen D. Allison Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason Jonathan OLSSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3776

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2017

Filed: May 1, 2017

Abram McGull, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jason Jonathan Olsson, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jason Olsson directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he *591pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Olsson’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. *See United States v. Scott,*627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 31.1**Seller Certification****BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES AUTO TRUST 2006-G1**I, James G. Mackey, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Banc of AmericaSecurities Auto Trust 2006-G1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, all the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports; 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all materialrespects; and 5. All the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instancesof noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: GMAC LLC and U.S. Bank National Association.Date: March 16, 2007         By:                                              /s/ James G. Mackey    Name:  James G. Mackey    Title:  Chief Financial Officer, BAS Securitization LLC
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin ARRIOLA-OREGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50424

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Ajay Krishnamurthy, Timothy D. Coughlin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert H. Rexrode, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Arriola-Oregel appeals from th'e district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Arriola-Oregel argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base level offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Arriola-Oregel was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Among other things, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to' apply a minor role reduction. *See id.*Because the Amendment was not yet in effect, the district court did not consider those factors. Accordingly, we vacate Arriola-Oregel’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Alberto MADRID-FELIX, a.k.a. Jesus Madrid Felix, a.k.a. Jesus A. Madrid-Felix, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10082

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

Jesus Alberto Madrid-Felix, Pro Se

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 Alberto Madrid-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges' his guilty-plea conviction and 18-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Madrid-Felix’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 Madrid-Felix the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Madrid-Felix 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.
Exhibit 10.20

TravelCenters of America
Position Agreement Summary
Larry Dockray

Position

This
offer is for the Executive Vice PresidentOperations position beginning November 1, 2006. The commitment is for a two-year period in Westlake, Ohio at
the Corporate Headquarters.

Cash Compensation

The
beginning annual base salary for this position will be $275,000 and the position will be eligible for a target bonus percentage of 75% of the annual base salary, one-half
of the target based upon the Company's achieving its annual EBITDA targets and one-half based upon the achievement of the performance targets.

Fringe Benefits

This
position will be eligible, in addition to the usual fringe benefits, for a company car as well as periodic company reimbursed trips to Las Cruces, NM for visits to his Mother. This
position will be eligible for an office within the Headquarters located on the third floor along the outside of the building with windows.

Relocation Assistance

The
Company will provide relocation to Cleveland, OH as well as returning to Las Cruces, NM. This relocation assistance will include the direct costs for moving goods to Cleveland as
well as back to Las Cruces. Additionally, the Company will reimburse the closing costs for the purchase of a house in Cleveland as well as the sales commission of the Cleveland house upon the return
to Las Cruces. The Company has also agreed to protect Larry Dockray from any ordinary losses in the real estate value due to a general decline in home values that may be sustained in the disposition
of his residence in Westlake upon his return to Las Cruces, NM at the end of his stint in this position.

Stock Incentive Program

This
position will be eligible to participate in the Stock Incentive Program that has yet to be defined.

|/s/ Timothy L. DoaneT.L. DoanePresident & CEO
Date: October 27, 2006 |  | /s/ L.W. DockrayL.W. DockrayEVP Operations
Date: October 27, 2006
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### New York Trap Rock Corporation et al., Plaintiffs, and Binghamton Metal Forms, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*The National Bank of Far Rockaway, Respondent.

Submitted June 18, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*600
      *Daniel Combs*for appellant.

*Carl E. Peterson*and *Joseph F. Finkelstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 79

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to extend a nutrition assistance

program to American Samoa, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to extend a nutrition

assistance program to American Samoa, 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,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PRO4 GRAM TO AMERICAN SAMOA.

5 The first sentence of section 601(c) of Public Law

6 96–597 (48 U.S.C. 1469d(c)) is amended by inserting be7 fore the period at the end the following: ‘‘, and the Sec8 retary of Agriculture shall extend a nutrition assistance
2

•S 79 IS

1 program conducted under the Food Stamp Act of 1977

2 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) to American Samoa’’.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 68

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the appointment of

health care professionals to the positions of the Surgeon General of

the Army, the Surgeon General of the Navy, and the Surgeon General

of the Air Force.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the

appointment of health care professionals to the positions

of the Surgeon General of the Army, the Surgeon General of the Navy, and the Surgeon General of the Air

Force.

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

3 SECTION 1. SURGEON GENERAL OF THE ARMY.

4 Section 3036 of title 10, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting before the pe7 riod at the end of the third sentence the following:
2

•S 68 IS

1 ‘‘and shall be appointed as prescribed in subsection

2 (f)’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 section (f):

5 ‘‘(f) The President shall appoint the Surgeon General

6 from among commissioned officers in any corps of the

7 Army Medical Department who are educationally and pro8 fessionally qualified to furnish health care to other per9 sons, including doctors of medicine, dentistry, and osteop10 athy, nurses, and clinical psychologists.’’.

11 SEC. 2. SURGEON GENERAL OF THE NAVY.

12 Section 5137 of title 10, United States Code, is

13 amended—

14 (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by

15 striking out ‘‘in the Medical Corps’’ and inserting in

16 lieu thereof ‘‘who are educationally and profes17 sionally qualified to furnish health care to other per18 sons, including doctors of medicine, dentistry, and

19 osteopathy, nurses, and clinical psychologists’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (b), by striking out ‘‘in the

21 Medical Corps’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘who is

22 qualified to be the Chief of the Bureau of Medicine

23 and Surgery’’.
3

•S 68 IS

1 SEC. 3. SURGEON GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE.

2 The first sentence of section 8036 of title 10, United

3 States Code, is amended by striking out ‘‘designated as

4 medical officers under section 8067(a) of this title’’ and

5 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘educationally and professionally

6 qualified to furnish health care to other persons, including

7 doctors of medicine, dentistry, and osteopathy, nurses, and

8 clinical psychologists’’.

Æ
#### Floyd PERRYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jasdeep BAL, Chief Medical Officer, CSP - Sacramento, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16705

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Floyd Perryman, Pro Se

Catherine Woodbridge Guess, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Floyd Perryman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indiffer*882ence to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Perryman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his thumb injury. *See id.*at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; a difference of medical opinion concerning the course of treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice does not amount to deliberate indifference); *see also Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion to amend his complaint because any amendment would be futile. *See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare,*666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review); *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper “if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion for additional discovery because Perryman did not demonstrate how additional discovery would defeat summary judgment. *See Qualls By & Through Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc.,*22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court properly denied Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (now Rule 56(d)) motion where additional requested discovery would not have precluded summary judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion for the appointment of medical experts because Perryman failed to show that such an appointment was necessary. See *Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan,*180 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review and noting that district court has discretion to appoint an expert where such an appointment is necessary).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Docket No: FAA-2015-0929 Dir ID: 2014-NM-218-AD
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1250

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM031AD

NTM D6-48023, R118 --- 7/15/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
No. 85-6697.

#### Lofton *v.*Michigan.

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of -- )

)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. )

)

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Jason N. Workmaster Esq.

Alejandro L. Sarria Esq.

 Miller & Chevalier Chartered

 Washington, DC

Raymond B. Biagini, Esq.

John E. Hall, Esq. 

 Covington & Burling, LLP

 Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Abraham L. Young, JA

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 21, 2020 

LYNDA T. O’SULLIVAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

 of Contract Appeals

ASBCA No. 61246

Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61246, Appeal of Kellogg Brown & 

Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 21, 2020

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-141827 and Form S-8 No. 333-185892), pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated February 22, 2017 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial highlights and Schedule 12-14 of Triangle Capital Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Triangle Capital Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2016 .








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


February 22, 2017