alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted June 29,

reversed and remanded August 23, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JORGE CANDELARIO PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C152069CR; A161551

401 P3d 296

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Garrett, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.

*462PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, assigning error to the trial court’s jury instruction on that offense. ORS 164.135(1), as pertinent here, provides:

> “A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:

> “(a) The person takes, operates, [or] exercises control over * * * another’s vehicle * * * without consent of the owner [.] ”

The instruction that the trial court gave did not specify a culpable mental state for the lack of consent element. “Lack of consent * * * is part of the conduct that the offense [of UUV] proscribes, and the minimum culpable mental state for that element is knowledge.” *State v. Simonov,*358 Or 531, 549, 368 P3d 11 (2016). Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by omitting the culpable mental state of “knowingly” from the lack of consent element. *See State v. Brown,*310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990) (“The court generally must instruct on all essential elements of the crime charged.”). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in *State v. Chase,*263 Or App 709, 710, 328 P3d 838 (2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.
No. 12-5073.

#### Davis *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>




<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-23-1997
<CASH>                                           6,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,781
<PP&E>                                          67,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,372
<BONDS>                                            635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,341
<SALES>                                         65,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,005
<CGS>                                           33,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,439)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,792)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,792)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.29)
        
















</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Sarkis ANTABIAN, Debtor, Sarkis Antabian, Appellant, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellee.

No. 17-60001

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 6, 2018 *

Filed February 8, 2018

Jayne T. Kaplan, Esquire, Jayne T. Kaplan, Pasadena, CA, for Appellant

J. Alexandra Rhim, Attorney, Hemar, Rousso & Heald LLP, Encino, CA, for Appellee

Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,** 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 Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sarkis Antabian appeals a judgment by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate *776Panel (“BAP”), which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Antabian’s adversary complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and affirm.

1. We agree with Antabian and the BAP that the sale of the subject property during the pendency of Antabian’s appeal to the BAP does not render the case moot. As the BAP pointed out, “the foreclosure sale generated cash proceeds, which were paid to Wells Fargo,” and “[t]he issue of Wells Fargo’s entitlement to those proceeds remains a live controversy.”

2. We “review[ ] decisions of the BAP de novo and applty] the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling.” *In re Deitz,*760 F.3d 1038, 1039 (9th Cir. 2014) (order). We review a dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. *In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig.,*460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Although dismissal is a harsh penalty, “we will overturn a dismissal sanction only if we have a definite and firm conviction that it was clearly outside the acceptable range of sanctions.” *Id.*(quoting *Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)).

The bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard under Rule 41(b). *See In re Phenylpropanolamine,*460 F.3d at 1226 (discussing factors a court should consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)). The bankruptcy court made explicit findings as to each of the essential factors, concluding that four of the five factors weighed in favor of dismissal. The court’s analysis of the relevant factors is reasonable and supported by the record. Although the facts do not compel dismissal, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in electing to do so.2

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*776ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Antabian also appealed from a separate, but identical BAP judgment. The other case, No. 17-60002, is resolved by a separate memorandum disposition.

2

. Because Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and the bankruptcy court’s order were based on Rule 41(b), we reject Antabian’s argument that the dismissal of his adversary complaint is governed by Rule 37, instead of Rule 41(b).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8921 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reimburse qualified 

health care providers for the costs of purchasing, leasing, installing, 

and operating qualified equipment for cold storage of COVID–19 vaccines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. ESPAILLAT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

reimburse qualified health care providers for the costs 

of purchasing, leasing, installing, and operating qualified 

equipment for cold storage of COVID–19 vaccines. 

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 ‘‘COVID–19 Cold Stor5 age Expansion Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8921 IH

1 SEC. 2. REIMBURSING HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOR 

2 EQUIPMENT FOR COLD STORAGE OF COVID– 

3 19 VACCINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

5 Human Services shall reimburse qualified health care pro6 viders for the costs of purchasing, leasing, installing, and 

7 operating qualified equipment for cold storage of COVID– 

8 19 vaccines. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

10 (1) The term ‘‘COVID–19 vaccine’’ means a 

11 vaccine to prevent or mitigate the virus that causes 

12 COVID–19. 

13 (2) The term ‘‘qualified equipment’’ means 

14 equipment that meets such criteria as the Food and 

15 Drug Administration may specify for cold storage of 

16 a COVID–19 vaccine. 

17 (3) The term ‘‘qualified health care provider’’ 

18 means a health care provider that— 

19 (A) is licensed or credentialed in the juris20 diction where vaccination takes place; and 

21 (B) completes and signs the CDC COVID– 

22 19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement. 

23 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry 

24 out this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated such 

25 sums as may be necessary, to be derived from amounts 

26 made available to the Secretary of Health and Human 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8921 IH

1 Services by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Se2 curity Act (Public Law 116–136) and allocated for Oper3 ation Warp Speed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX-10.33





 Exhibit 10.33 

[Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Letterhead] 

Confidential 
 June 14, 2019 

Steve Kanner, Ph.D. 
 22 Yankee Hill 

Oakland, CA 94618 
 Dear Steve: 

In light of your contributions to the Company over the past year, the Board of Directors has approved an increase in your base salary to $355,000 effective
July 1, 2019. Your new target bonus will be 35% effective for the 2019 bonus payment. 
 Thank you for your strategic leadership and continued service
to Caribou. I’m excited to continue making significant progress with you. 
  

	
	Regards,
	
	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	
	Rachel E. Haurwitz, Ph. D.
	President and CEO
Exhibit 99.23


PNM Resources, Inc.
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Alvarado Square
Albuquerque, New Mexico  87185


March 26, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


PNM Resources, Inc. and Public Service Company of New Mexico have obtained
representation from their external auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"),
that their audits were subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the audits
were conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was
appropriate continuity of personnel working on the audits and technical
consultation was available from the national office. The availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates was not applicable to these audits.





                                Very Truly Yours,


                                               /s/ John R. Loyack
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                                 John R. Loyack
                                     Vice President, Corporate Controller
                                        and Chief Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 995
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,250
<INVENTORY>                                         20,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    47,480
<PP&E>                                               3,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      57,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               40,945
<BONDS>                                              4,639
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               322
<OTHER-SE>                                          11,587
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        57,493
<SALES>                                            147,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   147,899
<CGS>                                              107,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    33,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,446
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.06
                                               


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      21.1**

**PUBLICARD,      INC**

**AND      SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES**

|                                                        |   | **State                  of Jurisdiction** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Subsidiary**                                              |   | **of                  Incorporation**      |   |
|                                                        |   |                                       |   |
| Amazing!                  Smart Card Technologies, Inc.     |   | California                                 |   |
| Blackwold,                  Inc.                            |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Boxsterview,                  Inc.                          |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Continental                  Distilling Corporation         |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Greystone                  Peripherals, Inc.                |   | California                                 |   |
| Hanten                  Acquisition Co.                     |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Infineer,                  Inc.                             |   | Florida                                    |   |
| Infineer                  Ltd.                              |   | Northern                  Ireland          |   |
| Orr-Schelen-Mayeron                  & Associates, Inc. |   | Minnesota                                  |   |
| Publicker                  Chemical Corporation             |   | Louisiana                                  |   |
| Publicker                  Gasohol, Inc.                    |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Publicker,                  Inc.                            |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Redwold,                  Inc.                              |   | Delaware                                   |   |
| Sagrocry,                  Inc.                             |   | Pennsylvania                               |   |

----
No. 12-185.

#### Maga *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11172-11173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5926]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-265-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company Ltd.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Wyoming Interstate Company 
Ltd. (WIC), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC gas tariff, 
First Revised

[[Page 11173]]

Volume No. 1, and Second Revised Volume No. 2 the tariff sheets listed 
in Appendix A to the filing, to be effective May 1, 1997.
    WIC states on November 1, 1996 it filed in Docket No. RP97-62-000 
pro forma tariff sheets to comply with Order No. 587. As part of WIC's 
filing its proposed revisions to its Volume No. 1 tariff to comply with 
Order No. 587 standards. However, in the Commission's order on WIC's 
compliance filing (Compliance Order) issued January 16, 1997, the 
Commission stated WIC must remove all proposed pro forma tariff changes 
to its Volume No. 1 tariff as this tariff is only for service under 
Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. The Compliance Order stated 
WIC could file these proposed changes separately as a limited section 4 
filing. The Compliance Order further stated WIC's proposed new 
Headstation Pooling Rate Schedule in Volume No. 2 goes beyond the scope 
of Order No. 587 and should also be addressed in a limited section 4 
filing. WIC states this is the purpose of this filing.
    WIC states that copies of this filing have been served on WIC's 
jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 
385.214 and Section 385.211 of the Commission's Regulations. All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and area available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5926 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Susan Lorraine DONALDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee, and M&T Bank, Defendant.

No. 15-1781

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 20, 2017

Decided: February 5, 2018

John Douglas Burns, THE BURNS LAWFIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Kyle James Moulding, Steven Cammarata, MCCABE, WEISBERG, AND CONWAY, LLC, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Susan Lorraine Donaldson filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in April 2014. She filed the underlying adversary proceeding seeking a declaration that would allow her to bifurcate the mortgage on her primary residence into a secured claim up to the appraised value and an unsecured claim on the remaining balance (i.e., a “cram-down”). Donaldson argued that, because the deed of trust provides for supplemental collateral in the form of escrow funds, insurance proceeds, and miscellaneous proceeds, these interests are not “real property” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (2012). The bankruptcy court disagreed and granted Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s motion to dismiss. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order and Donaldson appealed to this court.

In light of our decision in *Birmingham v. PNC Bank, N.A.,*846 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2017), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 468, 199 L.Ed.2d 375 (2017), we affirm the district court’s order. In *Birmingham,*we held that the assignment to the lender in the deed of trust of “[ejscrow funds, insurance proceeds, and miscellaneous proceeds [does] not constitute additional collateral,” within the meaning of § 1322(b)(2). *Id.*at 99. Based on our reasoning in *Birmingham,*we affirm the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Donaldson’s complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
### A v ena l B O & C o rr e s ponden ce Roge r K ohn t

o: Er i c

_ P o r t er 03 / 12 / 2012 10 : 18 AM C c: J u li e W a l t

e rs

Er i c,

O n ou r M

a rc h 7 c a ll

, we m en t

i oned t ha t we c ou l d p r

o v i de a s a m p l e B i o l og i c a l O p i n i on and

c o rr e s ponden c e t

ha t r e f l e c t s ou r r o l e and t he PS D pe rm i t app li c an t 's r o l e i n c a rry i ng ou t r

e s pon s i b ili t

i e s
ou t li ned i n b i o l og i c a l op i n i on s f o r f ede r a l PS D pe rm i tt

i ng a c t i on s

. I ha v e a tt

a c hed e x a m p l e s f

r o m ou r Av ena l PS D p r

o j e c t. W e hope y ou f

i nd t he s e u s e f

u l

. P l ea s e l e t u s k now i f y ou ha v e an y que s t i on s abou t t h i s app r oa c h

. T han k y ou.

08

- F

- 13338 A v ena l B O. pdf A v ena l

_ 0901

_ C v r L t

r

_ ESA

- F i na l B O. pdf

R e s pon s e t

o EPA l t r 9

- 1

- 2010

. pdf

Roge r K ohn U SEPA Reg i on 9

- A i r D i v i s i on (A I R

- 3) 75 Haw t ho r ne S t r eet S an F r an c i sc o , C A 94105

- 3901 415

- 972

- 3973 k ohn

. r oge r @ epa