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

No. 16-10345

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Rosetta Laura San Nicolas, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USHA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Franklin John Salas, pro se.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and . GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Franklin John Salas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salas contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court (i) double counted by applying a Guidelines enhancement for leadership and also justifying a high-end sentence for that same reason, (ii) used his negative drug tests, an ostensibly mitigating factor, as an aggravating factor, and (iii) used his failure to cooperate fully with the government as an aggravating factor. 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 within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The record belies Salas’s argument that the district court treated his negative drug tests as an aggravating factor. Moreover, the district court properly considered Salas’s leadership role and lack of cooperation. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); *United States v. Christensen,*732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court may weigh factors already accounted for in the Guidelines calculation when selecting the sentence under section 3553(a)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Brian Cole, Chief Financial Officer of Play LA Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report of Play LA Inc.;



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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







March 23, 2007

/s/Brian Cole

Date

Brian Cole,

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                                
                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                             AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  PAYMENTECH, INC. 1996 RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN
                  -------------------------------------------
                                        

     WHEREAS, Paymentech, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has
heretofore maintained the Amended and Restated Paymentech, Inc. 1996 Restricted
Stock Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of certain of its employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved this
amendment to the Plan on the date set forth below;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

     1.   Paragraphs (k), (l) and (m) of Section 2 are hereby deleted in their
entirety.

     2.   The last sentence of Section 6(a) is hereby deleted.

     3.   Section 6(c) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

          (c)  Forfeiture. Subject to such exceptions as may be determined by
               ----------    
     the Committee, if the Grantee's continuous employment with the Company or
     its direct and indirect subsidiaries shall terminate for any reason (other
     than by reason of death or disability) prior to vesting of the Restricted
     Stock, any shares remaining subject to restrictions shall thereupon be
     forfeited by the Grantee and transferred to, and reacquired by, the Company
     at no cost to the Company; provided, however, that, with respect to
                                --------  -------       
     Grantees who are not Executive Officers, (i) the Committee may provide, by
     rule or regulation or in any Restricted Stock Agreement, or may determine
     in any individual case, that restrictions or forfeiture conditions relating
     to Restricted Stock will be waived in whole or in part in the event of
     terminations resulting from specified causes, and (ii) the Committee may in
     other cases waive in whole or in part the forfeiture of Restricted Stock.
     Nothing in the Plan or in any Restricted Stock Agreement shall confer upon
     an individual any right to continue in the employ of the Company or
     interfere in any way with the right of the Company to terminate such
     employment.
 
     4.   Section 6(i) is hereby deleted.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted this amendment as of this 23rd
day of March, 1998.

                                        PAYMENTECH, INC.


                                        By:  /s/ Philip Taken
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Philip E. Taken              
                                             Chief Administrative Officer,
                                             General Counsel and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6256 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6256

 To provide temporary visitation to spouses of United States citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

 Mr. Huffman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide temporary visitation to spouses of United States citizens.

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

SECTION 1. ADMISSION OF SPOUSES OF NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED 
              STATES AS NONIMMIGRANTS.

    (a) Classification as Nonimmigrants.--Section 101(a)(15) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (V), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (V) the following:
                    ``(W) an alien who is the spouse of a national or 
                citizen of the United States, and has been the spouse 
                of such national or citizen for a period of not less 
                than 180 days, or who is the child of such an alien and 
                is accompanying, or following to join, the alien.''.
    (b) Requirements for Admission.--Section 214 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(s)(1) The period of authorized admission for an alien admitted 
to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(W) 
shall be 180 days, which may be extended for one additional 180-day 
period.
    ``(2) The total number of principal aliens who may be admitted 
under section 101(a)(15)(W) during any fiscal year may not exceed 
5,000.
    ``(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, shall establish a process to ensure the expedited 
admission to the United States of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(W).
    ``(4) An alien admitted under section 101(a)(15)(W) is not eligible 
for work authorization.''.
    (c) Adjustment of Status Prohibited.--Section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(n) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security may not adjust the status of an alien admitted to 
the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(W) to that 
of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



The undersigned, Eugene Seymour, MD, Chief
Executive Officer of NanoViricides, 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 NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2013 (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 NanoViricides, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: September 30, 2013 | /s/ Eugene Seymour, MD                     
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------
|                         | Name: Eugene Seymour, MD                   
|                         | Title: Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                         | (Principal Executive Officer)              



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 NanoViricides, Inc.
and will be retained by NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Eduardo ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred FOULK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-17394

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 13, 2017* San Francisco, California

Filed July 17, 2017

Mark Eibert, Esquire, Attorney, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Eduardo Alvarez, Pro Se

Roni Dina Pomerantz, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Eduardo Alvarez appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We review de novo, *Lopez v. Thompson,*202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), and affirm.

Alvarez was granted a certificate of ap-pealability on two questions: (1) whether the prosecutor’s questions and argument at his trial unconstitutionally drew attention to Alvarez’s decision to invoke his right to remain silent under *Doyle v. Ohio,*426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); and (2) whether he is entitled to relief under a related claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

1. The prosecutor’s questions and closing argument were improper under *Doyle,*Even so, the district court correctly denied relief because the state court could reasonably have held that the prosecutor’s conduct did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting *Kotteakos v. United States,*328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). To the extent that the prosecutor’s questions called the jury’s attention to Alvarez’s post-arrest silence, they did so in the context of a broader, permissible argument based on Alvarez’s delay in turning himself in and his failure to make any mitigating or exculpatory statements prior to his arrest. Taken as a whole, the evidence against Alvarez was also strong. *See id.*at 639, 113 S.Ct. 1710 (addressing a similar factual scenario); *see also Jenkins v. Anderson,*447 U.S. 231, 240, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980).

2. We “need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Even if it was, Alvarez cannot prevail because the California courts could reason*679ably have concluded that there was no prejudice; the likelihood of a different result at trial was not substantial. *See Harrington v. Richter,*562 U.S. 86, 105, 111-12, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
75 Fifth St NW, Suite 1200, Atlanta Georgia 30308

A erospace. g eo rg iainnovation.org June 29, 2015

Docket Operations M

- 30

U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590

Subject: Letter of Support for Area

- I FAA Section 333 Exemption Request

To Whom It May Concern:

The Georgia Center of Innovation for Aerospace submits this letter in support of the Area

- I, Inc. Section 333 petition to the FAA to expand its flight test capabilities in the state. The Center provides the technical industry expertise, collaborative research and partnerships to help the industry connect, compete and grow. The Center advances recognition of Georgia’s strength in the global aerosp ace industry and contributes to the entrepreneurial and educational ecosystems required for its continued growth.

As such, the Center supports a focused program within the state to expand the commercial operations of UAS with Georgia. The Center believes that enabling UAS operations through the Section 333 exemption is in line with our commitment t o growing the local technology industry and providing an avenue for the UAS marketplace to thrive, further benefitting the state of Georgia by attracting talent in industry, academia, and business.

The Center is proud to have facilitated the relationship between Area

- I and Middle Georgia State College (MGSC), who acquired a COA from the FAA to enable multiple successful, safe, and legal flight tests by the MGSC/ Area

- I team over the last three years. Give n our experience with

Area

- I and their record of professionalism

, the Center supports Area

- I’s p etition to legally perform UAS operations u nder the Section 333 exemption and will continue to work with Area

- I

to help them connect , compete, and grow in the expanding UAS market.

Respectfully,

R. Steve n Justice Director, Georgia Cen ter of Innovation for Aerospace
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5948 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 830 Kuhn Drive in Chula Vista, California, 

as the ‘‘Jonathan ‘J.D.’ De Guzman Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5948 EH

1 SECTION 1. JONATHAN ‘‘J.D.’’ DE GUZMAN POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 830 Kuhn Drive in Chula Vista, 

5 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jona6 than ‘J.D.’ De Guzman Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jonathan ‘J.D.’ De 

11 Guzman Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5948 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostGuzman Post Office Building’’. Vista, California, as the ‘‘Jonathan ‘J.D.’ De al Service located at 830 Kuhn Drive in Chula
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6222 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require publication of information 

pertaining to the persons participating in the rule making, and on the 

basis on which the rule is made, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. YOUNG of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require publication 

of information pertaining to the persons participating 

in the rule making, and on the basis on which the 

rule is made, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regulatory Finger5 prints Act of 2016’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6222 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED PUBLICATIONS PERTAINING TO RULE 

2 MAKINGS. 

3 Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amend4 ed by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(f) For all publications in the Federal Register per6 taining to the rule, the agency shall include in such publi7 cation— 

8 ‘‘(1) the name and title of officer or employee 

9 of the agency who participated in the rule making, 

10 and each person performing any work pertaining to 

11 the rule making under the terms of a contract with 

12 the agency; and 

13 ‘‘(2) the specific legal authority that authorizes 

14 the agency to make the rule. 

15 ‘‘(g) Each person whose name and title is published 

16 pursuant to subsection (f)(1), shall, during the period in 

17 which the rule making was ongoing, file a report (which 

18 the agency shall make available online) of each transaction 

19 required to be reported by a person under section 103(l) 

20 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the same ex21 tent and in the same manner as such a person.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000020024-MAY-201108:00 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6261

BENJAMIN ROSS DOWNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON; HELEN F. FAHEY; JAMES SISK,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00199-REP)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Ross Downey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Ross Downey appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Downey v. Johnson , No. 3:08-cv-00199-REP
(E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED