alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DANIEL OBERHOLTZER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30147

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00016-RAJ-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2016

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Oberholtzer appeals the imposition of a personal money judgment

against him under criminal forfeiture statutes, after he pled guilty to conspiracy to

traffic in counterfeit goods. Oberholtzer asserts that: (1) the district court lacked

FILED

JAN 04 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1
the authority to impose a personal money judgment against him; (2) the personal

money judgment was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3)

the district court erroneously calculated the forfeiture amount; (4) the personal

money judgment violated the ex post facto clause because it was based on activity

that occurred prior to Congress passing the criminal forfeiture statues; (5) he was

deprived of his right to procedural due process due to the district court’s

application of the expedited forfeiture procedures under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32.2(b)(1); and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying his

motions for a continuance of the forfeiture hearing. 

The district court had authority to enter a personal money judgment against

Oberholtzer. See United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071, 1073-75 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Oberholtzer argues that Casey should be overturned, but this panel may not

overturn binding precedent absent a “clearly irreconcilable” Supreme Court

decision. Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.

2013) (citation omitted).

Oberholtzer’s remaining claims lack merit. See United States v. Newman,

659 F.3d 1235, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a personal money judgment is

2
a type of criminal forfeiture); United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1237-38

(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a district court acted within its discretion when it

denied a continuance because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice);

United States v. Hamilton, 208 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that due

process requires only “reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard”) (citation

omitted); United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1348-49 (9th Cir. 1998)

(upholding a criminal forfeiture against an Eighth Amendment challenge); United

States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 1991), as amended (holding that a

defendant fails to demonstrate clear error “by pointing to conflicting evidence in

the record”); United States v. Inafuku, 938 F.2d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 1991)

(upholding application of the law “as it exists at the end of [a] conspiracy” against

an ex post facto clause challenge) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED. 

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert D. ZENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30293

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael William Dion, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Offlce of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gregory Geist, Ann Wagner, Staff Attorney, FPDWA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Herbert D. Zeno appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed upon remand following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

Zeno argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to justify the sentence, failing to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors sufficiently, and relying on an inflammatory statement made at his first sentencing hearing in rendering its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Zeno’s sentencing arguments and adequately explained its reasons for imposing an upward variance. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s sentencing remarks indicate that it considered the section 3553(a) factors. *See id.*(“The *368district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). Finally, nothing in the record suggests' that the district court’s decision was improperly influenced by its remarks at Zeno’s first sentencing hearing, which occurred almost three years before the resentencing hearing at issue here.

Zeno also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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 sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Zeno’s criminal history, which includes several gun offenses and violent felonies. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 20

A resolution making majority party appointments to certain Senate

committees for the 104th Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making majority party appointments to certain

Senate committees for the 104th Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following standing com3 mittees for the 104th Congress, or until their successors

4 are chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND

6 FORESTRY: Mr. Lugar, Mr. Dole, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coch7 ran, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.

8 Santorum, and Mr. Warner.

9 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Hatfield, Mr.

10 Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
2

SRES 20 ATS

1 Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr.

2 Mack, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg,

3 and Mr. Bennett.

Æ
----

Corrigendum to Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards the possibility for certain Member States to apply, in respect of energy products and electricity, temporary exemptions or reductions in the levels of taxation

(Official Journal of the European Union L 157 of 30 April 2004)

Directive 2004/74/EC should read as follows:

                        COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2004/74/EC

of 29 April 2004                     

amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards the possibility for certain Member States to apply, in respect of energy products and electricity, temporary exemptions or reductions in the levels of taxation

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 93 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 2003/96/EC is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive from 1 May 2004. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2.   Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on 1 May 2004.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 2004.

For the Council

The President

M. McDOWELL                        

ANNEX

                                 ‘ANNEX III

Reduced rates of taxation and exemptions from such taxation referred to in Article 18a(1):

----

(1)  Opinion delivered on 30 March 2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  Opinion delivered on 31 March 2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51.

(4)OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12. Directive as amended by Directive 94/74/EC. (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 46).

(5)OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 19. Directive as amended by Directive 94/74/EC.

(6)OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 17.

----
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                            |
##### 



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 of Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Townsend, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) 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 the Company.



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ RICHARD J. TOWNSEND    
| |                            
| | Richard J. Townsend        
| | Executive Vice President   
| | and Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Party City Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company    for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ MICHAEL E. TENNENBAUM       Michael E. Tennenbaum *Chairman of the Executive Committee*Dated: May 12, 2005     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 82 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 82

    To petition the States to convene a Conference of the States to 
       consider a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              March 2 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

     Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Helms) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To petition the States to convene a Conference of the States to 
       consider a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America provides 
        that the Congress is vested with the authority to lay and collect taxes, 
        to pay the debts of the United States, to borrow money on the credit of 
        the United States, and to appropriate money from the Treasury;
Whereas for the past quarter century Congress has been unable to balance the 
        Nation's budget in any year;
Whereas the President of the United States has submitted a budget which 
        increases the deficit in future years;
Whereas Members of Congress have been unable to agree on language for an 
        Amendment to the Constitution which would require a balanced budget; and
Whereas Congress has therefore attempted to deny the several States of the 
        United States the opportunity to vote on a Constitutional Amendment 
        requiring a balanced budget: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Congress hereby petitions the several States of the 
United States of America to convene a Conference of the States for the 
express and exclusive purpose of drafting an Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget and 
prohibiting the imposition of unfunded mandates on the States, and that 
such States then consider whether it is necessary for the States to 
convene a Constitutional Convention pursuant to Article V of the 
Constitution of the United States in order to adopt such Amendment.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 976 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 976

 To transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in 
       Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 28 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in 
       Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE 
              REFUGE.

    (a) Transfer.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer, with the 
consent of the Governor of Oklahoma, the management of the lands and 
waters within the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma to 
the State of Oklahoma for administration by the Director of the 
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (or any successor agency).
    (b) Management.--
            (1) In general.--The lands and waters transferred under 
        subsection (a) shall--
                    (A) be managed for the same uses and in the same 
                manner as the lands were managed by the United States 
                Fish and Wildlife Service prior to 1994; and
                    (B) continue to be a national wildlife refuge.
            (2) Applicable laws.--The laws (including regulations) 
        applicable to the National Wildlife Refuge System established 
        under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 
        1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) shall continue to be applicable 
        to the lands and waters on and after the effective date of the 
        transfer under subsection (a).
    (c) Authorization of Funding.--For each fiscal year commencing 
after the date of enactment of this Act, there is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to make annual grants to 
the State of Oklahoma for management of the lands and waters 
transferred under subsection (a) an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
amount made available to the Secretary of the Interior in fiscal year 
1994 for the management of the refuge.
                                 <all>
```
# CA2006181EN.01000101.xml

| 3.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 181/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
#### Jose Salazar RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71740

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*364Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Salazar Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Valadez-Munoz v. Holder,*623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salazar Rodriguez is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) because he made a false claim of United States citizenship to gain entry to the United States. *See Valadez-Munoz,*623 F.3d at 1308-09 (record did not compel reversal of agency’s determination that petitioner made a false claim of citizenship where he presented border officials with a Texas birth certificate and a California driver license under a different identity in his attempt to enter the United States). Thus, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Ronald WILLIAMS; Jann Gwendolyn Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15152

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Ronald Williams, Pro Se

Jann Gwendolyn Williams, Pro Se

Gregory L. Wilde, Esquire, Tiffany <& Bosco, P.A., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees National Default Servicing Corporation, Michael A. Bosco, Jr., Wendy Van Lauren, Carmen Navejas

Bradley Sims, Esquire, Michael K. Wall, Managing Senior Counsel, Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Duke Partners II LLC

*377Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Williams and Jann Gwendolyn Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants made false representations concerning the title of the property at issue or that plaintiffs own or hold a beneficial interest in the property. *See*Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.395(1), (5) (2015) (defining false representations concerning title and setting forth requirements for bringing a civil action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave plaintiffs notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. *See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,*500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a vexatious litigant).

We^ do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,