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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. MAX JOSEPH PLOG

- HOROWITZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No s . 14

- 10059 14

- 10060 D.C. No s . 4:12

- cr - 00661

- CW

4:13

- cr - 00337

- CW MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015 ** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidate d appeals, Max Joseph Plog

- Horowitz appeals from the district court ’s judgment s and challenges the 60

- month sentence imposed following his revocation of probation and guilty

- plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 10059 & 14

- 10060

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Plog

- Horowitz contends that the district court improperly imposed a four

level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B ) . He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm in connection with the felony of impersonating a federal officer

. We review for clear error

. See U nited States v. Flores , 729 F.3d 910 , 913 (9th Cir. 2013 ). The pistol that Plog

- H orowitz was convicted of possessing was found loaded and holste red along with law enforcement credentials, clothing, and other weapons . In light of this and Plog

Horowitz’s history o f impersonating a federal officer , the district co urt did not clear ly err in finding that Plog

- Horowitz intended to use or possess the firearm in connection with the offense of impersonating a federal officer

. See United States
v. Jimison , 493 F .3d 11 48, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, the district court also found that Plog

- Horowitz intended to possess or use the gun in connection with the felony offense of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and Plog

Horowitz does not challenge that finding on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         294,689
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,514,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         390,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,327,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,294,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,011,899
<COMMON>                                       696,776
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,036,297)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,327,324
<SALES>                                      5,169,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,026,446
<CGS>                                        4,615,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,025,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (163,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (163,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  81,161
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### Amy D’Angelis et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of David D’Angelis, Respondents, v Buffalo General Hospital et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[770 NYS2d 553]

Appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered July 10, 2003, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion and cross motion for a protective order and directed de*1478fendant Buffalo General Hospital to provide plaintiffs with a written evaluation of a nonparty physician submitted to its quality assurance committee.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion and cross motion for a protective order with respect to the written evaluation of Scott Zuccala, M.D. submitted to the quality assurance committee of defendant Buffalo General Hospital and vacating the second ordering paragraph and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied those parts of their respective motion and cross motion for a protective order in this medical malpractice action and directed that defendant Buffalo General Hospital (Hospital) provide plaintiffs with certain written material. The proceedings and records of a medical review committee are not subject to discovery when such committee is performing “any medical or quality assurance review function” (Education Law § 6527 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2805-m; *Logue v Velez,*92 NY2d 13, 16-17 [1998]; *Bryant v Bui,*265 AD2d 848, 849 [1999]). However, statements of a defendant doctor made before a peer review board or for quality assurance evaluation are not privileged when they relate to the subject matter of the litigation *(see Bryant,*265 AD2d at 849). Thus, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in ordering the disclosure of the written evaluation of Scott Zuccala, M.D., a nonparty physician, submitted to the Hospital’s quality assurance committee *(see Di Chiara v Kaleida Health,*306 AD2d 901, 902 [2003]), and we modify the order accordingly. We further conclude that the court properly permitted the disclosure of defendant Dr. Dennis Weppner’s statement during the quality assurance committee meeting concerning plaintiff mother’s labor and delivery *(see Koithan v Zornek,*226 AD2d 1080 [1996]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
(August 22, 1995)

#### In the Matter of Carol Bergmann et al., Appellants, v Gerald Berger et al., Respondents, and Robert L. La Bua et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 246]

—In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Robert L. La Bua as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 12, 1995, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Council, Town of Huntington, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated August 2, 1995, which granted the oral motion of the Town of Huntington to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The subpoena duces tecum issued by the court upon the petitioners’ application was broadly framed to compel the production of numerous personnel records, telephone message pads, and time sheets of Town employees, as well as the minutes of meetings at which employees were appointed to their positions. On the record before this Court, the petitioners failed to demonstrate, in response to the Town’s oral motion to quash the subpoena, that the documents were relevant and material, or that the subpoena constituted anything but a "fishing expedition” *(see, Matter of Constantine v Leto,*157 AD2d 376, *affd*77 NY2d 975; *see also, Matter of New York State Dept. of Labor v Robinson,*87 AD2d 877). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

No. 04-12-00630-CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R."Bill" Huff, 

Rick D'Angelo, Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley-Huff Energy Group, LLC,

Appellants

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-09-12583-ZCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. The appellee's 

brief is due on or before April 9, 2014. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE 

GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Com. v. Maute

10/29/2015

251 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1046
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

[CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS LOGO]                           101 Hudson Street
                                                          Suite 3700
                                                          Jersey City, NJ  07302


May 24, 2006


JAG Media Holdings, Inc.
6865 SW 18th Street, Suite B-13
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Attention:  Thomas J. Mazzarisi

         RE:      EQUITY LINE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN JAG MEDIA
                  HOLDINGS, INC., AND CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP DATED AS OF
                  APRIL 9, 2002, AS AMENDED ON JULY 8, 2004 AND JULY 21, 2004
                  (THE "EQUITY LINE AGREEMENT")

Dear Mr. Mazzarisi:

         This letter will memorialize the agreement between JAG Media Holdings,
Inc., (the "Company"), and Cornell Capital Partners, LP, ("Cornell") with
respect to the Equity Line Agreement, as well as the related Equity Line
Registration Rights Agreement and Placement Agent Agreement each dated April 9,
2002 (collectively the "Transaction Documents"). The Transaction Documents are
hereby terminated, as are the respective rights and obligations contained
therein and none of the parties shall have any rights or obligations under or
with respect to the Transaction Documents.

                                          Cornell Capital Partners, LP
                                          By:  Yorkville Advisors, LLC
                                          Its: General Partner

                                          By: __________________________
                                          Name:  Mark Angelo
                                          Title: President and Portfolio Manager


Agreed and acknowledged on this _____ day of May, 2006.

JAG Media Holdings, Inc.

By:  _____________________
Name:  Thomas J. Mazzarisi
Title: CEO
2017-1044.

#### West v. Wainwright.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamal Williams, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 870]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered February 23, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or were outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying offense, in which defendant was convicted of first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Robert Castroll et al., Respondents, v Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 796]

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review the resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor which imposed a special assessment upon the petitioners for the improvement of a street adjacent to their properties, and an action for a judgment declaring the special assessment illegal, unjust, void and unconstitutional, the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated September 26, 2002, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the hybrid proceeding and action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the petition is denied, and the hybrid proceeding and action is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in its determination that this hybrid proceeding and action is not barred by the statute of limitations. The applicable statute of limitations is that contained in CPLR 217 for the commencement of CPLR article 78 proceedings *(see Matter of Board of Educ. of Enlarged City School Dist. of Middletown v Russo,*283 AD2d 490, 492 [2001]; *Solnick v Whalen,*49 NY2d 224 [1980]). The petitioners, who allege, inter alia, that the appellant unlawfully levied a special assessment against them for a road improvement project, received actual notice of the special assessment when they received their tax bills beginning with the 1992-1993 fiscal year. Since there is no evidence that the petitioners instituted the hybrid proceeding and action within four months of receiving the applicable tax bills, it must be dismissed as time-barred *(see Matter of Adventist Home v Board of Assessors of Town of Livingston,*83 NY2d 878, 880 [1994]). Moreover, the petitioners’ delay in bringing this hybrid proceeding and action was so extensive that it is *444barred by the doctrine of laches *(see Matter of Agoado v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.,*282 AD2d 602 [2001]). In addition, the cause of action seeking to recover payments made on the assessment on the ground that the assessment was invalid cannot be maintained since the assessment was never annulled *(see Dennison v City of New York,*182 NY 24, 25 [1905]; *McCall v City of Rochester,*44 Misc 129, 132-133 [1904]).

The remaining contentions of the parties either are academic or without merit. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



1.       SalesLogix International, Inc., an Arizona corporation

2.       Opis SupportExpress, Inc., an Arizona corporation

3.       Interact Commerce (Europe) Limited, an English corporation

4.       Enact Incorporated, an Arizona corporation

5.       Interact Commerce Corporation Pty. Limited, an Australian corporation

6.       Interact GMBH, a German corporation

7.       Interact Commerce Singapore Pte Limited, a Singapore corporation

8.       Interact Ventures LLC, an Arizona limited liability corporation
No. 12-8231.

#### Leal-Pena *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Pena, Matter of, v New York State Gaming Commn.

3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1244

granted
2016-1797.

#### Brutten Family Partners, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-2325. On joint motion to remand the appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals in order to implement a settlement. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
----

----

| ·     | Valuation report in respect of options granted in July 18, 2010 under the framework of ESOP 2006 and 2008, dated October 2010; |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·     | Valuation report in respect of options granted in August 30, 2009 under the framework of ESOP 2006 and 2008, dated November 2009; |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·     | Valuation report in respect of options granted in May 27, 2009 under the framework of ESOP 2006 and 2008, dated June 2009; |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·     | Valuation report in respect of options re-priced in May 20, 2009 under the framework of ESOP 2006 and 2008, dated June 2009; and |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·     | 2011 re-pricing valuation for the year ended December 31, 2011. |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-36649) pertaining to the Summit Holding Southeast, Inc.
Retirement Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-31781)
pertaining to the Summit Holding Southeast, Inc. 1996 Long Term Incentive Plan
and the Summit Consulting, Inc. Retirement Plan (as amended) of our report
dated March 6, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Summit Holding Southeast, Inc. included in the transition report
on Form 10-K for the nine-month period ended December 31, 1997.




                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Jacksonville, Florida
March 25, 1998
# Distribution LNO is a DLA Europe & Africa “Hero of the Quarter” 

/ Published Feb. 23, 2020
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
Defense Logistics Agency Europe & Africa selected Marine Corps Lt. Col. Scott Wawrzyniak, liaison officer, DLA Distribution, as the regional Hero of the Quarter for second quarter fiscal year 2020. 

According to Army Col. Krista Hoffman, commander, DLA Europe & Africa, Wawrzyniak has been a pillar of support in both exercise and operational planning efforts, especially in support of Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20. “He hit it out of the park last month briefing DLA equities (Distribution focused) at last month’s Defender Sustainment Rock Drill.  Even (Air Force) Lt. Gen. (Giovanni) Tuck, (Director for Logistics, Joint Staff), J4, commented on how well DLA did at the event – totally attributable to Scott’s professionalism, knowledge and efforts.”

Hoffman continued, “Scott is truly a valued member of our team. He is a team player, a team builder, and is TRUSTED by this Command. We are really fortunate to have him over here supporting us and being an essential link back to New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. Thank you for allowing Scott to serve with us.”
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15104]



[[Page 31210]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-40-004]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Refund Report

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing its Refund Report pursuant to 
the Commission's Order Denying Petitions For Adjustment and 
Establishing Procedures for the Payment of Refunds for Kansas Ad 
Valorem Taxes dated September 10, 1997 (September 10, 1997 Order).
    On April 8, 1998, Panhandle states that it refunded to its 
jurisdictional customers their allocated share of the refunds of Kansas 
Ad Valorem taxes received from Panhandle's producer suppliers.
    Panhandle submits the following information pursuant to Ordering 
Paragraph (E) of the September 10, 1997 Order:
    (1) Appendix A--Summary of the Kansas Ad Valorem tax refund amounts 
due from the producer suppliers, amounts received and amounts which 
remain unpaid by producer suppliers as of March 31, 1998.
    (2) Appendix B--Workpapers supporting the refund made on April 8, 
1998.
    Panhandle states that a copy of this information is being sent to 
each of Panhandle's affected customers and respective State Regulatory 
Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 9, 1998. 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15104 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit
      32(a)**











**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 accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      Report), I, Scott T. Ford, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/
      Scott T. Ford


Scott
      T.
      Ford


Chief
      Executive Officer and President


November
      8, 2006



































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.