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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

DARIO TEQUIDA-ESQUER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10514

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00857-JGZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Dario Tequida-Esquer appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and 846; and possession with intent to distribute

FILED

OCT 20 2014

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.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii). We have

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

Tequida-Esquer contends that the district court erred by imposing the

mandatory minimum sentence based in part on its finding that Tequida-Esquer

possessed a firearm in connection with his offense and was, therefore, ineligible to

be sentenced under the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). TequidaEsquer argues that the facts underlying the safety valve determination must be

submitted to a jury under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). This

argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Lizarraga-Carrizales, 757 F.3d 995,

999 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he denial of safety valve relief does not increase the

statutory maximum or minimum such that Alleyne is implicated . . . Accordingly,

the factual predicate for denying safety valve relief need not be proven to a jury.”). 

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-10514
Exhibit 15.3  July 8,
2010  Securities
and Exchange Commission 100
F. Street N.E. Washington,
D.C. 20549  Re:
  Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp.No. 000-52358  We
have read the statements made by Funtalk China Holdings Limited (copy
attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission as part of the annual report Form 20-F under Change In
Registrants Certifying Accountant, to be dated July 9,
2010.  We agree with the statements concerning our Firm made in
Change In Registrants Certifying Accountant paragraphs one through five in the
current Form 20-F.  We have no basis to agree or disagree with
the other statements by Funtalk China Holdings Limited contained therein.  Sincerely,  /s/Weiser
LLP
CHARLESTON.

#### Richardson *v.*McConanghey.

Submitted June 16, 1902.

Decided December 20, 1902.

1. Wbit of *Error-Evidence.*

A writ of error to a judgment of tlie circuit court for assigned errors involving the evidence alone, which is not certified or in any manner made *part oí the*record, will he dismissed as improvidently awarded. *Graft*v. *Mann,*46 W. Ya. 478. (p. 373).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County.

Action by E. P. Richardson against Anna MeConanghey. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

*Dismissed.*

Hooten & HooteN, for plaintiff in error.

J. Howaed Holt, for defendant in error.

*373DENT, PRESIDENT:

E. P. Richardson obtained a writ of error to the judgment of the circuit court of Marshall County, on his suit against Anna McConanghey. All the errors assigned are wholly dependent on the evidence, which is not certified or in any manner made a part of the record, and hence there is nothing on which to found a writ of error. It was therefore improperly allowed. In this State appeals and writs of error do not lie as matters of right, but are only allowed when the court or judge examining the record is satisfied that the case is one proper to be reviewed. Where the record is so defective as to present no error that this Court can review, the writ of error or appeal should be refused, and if by oversight it is awarded or allowed, as soon as the defect is brought to the attention of the court, it should be dismissed *sua sponte-*or on motion and thus avoid unnecessary costs and damages to the litigants. This appears to be the general rule. 3 C. Y. C. 182. *Craft*v. *Mann,*46 W. Va. 478 (33 S. E. 260).

In some cases the practice has been to affirm the judgment. *Griffith*v. *Corrothers,*42 W. Va. 59 (24 S. E. 569), 3 Cy. C. 188.

It seems to me that the plaintiff in error should not -be mulct with the damages of the affirmance of judgment when owing to defects and irregularities in the record this Court 'is unable to review the case on errors assigned, the writ having been by oversight improperly awarded, but the same should be dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
Amendment No. 7 to the Employee Savings Plan, amended as of September 26, 2007



 Exhibit 10.9.7 
 AMENDMENT NO. 7 
 TO THE 
 UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC. 
 EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN 
 Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the above-named plan (the “Plan”), effective as of September 29,
2007, as follows: 
 1. Section 1.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding two new definitions of “AGI Acquisition” and
“Former AGI Employee” to read as follows: 
 “‘AGI Acquisition’ shall mean the acquisition of
Associated Grocers, Inc. by the Company.” 
 “‘Former AGI Employee’ shall mean any Employee whose
employment with Associated Grocers, Inc. terminated immediately prior to the closing of the AGI Acquisition, and who immediately after such closing accepted and commenced employment with the Company.” 
 2. Section 2.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(a) Each Employee shall become eligible to participate in the Plan on the Entry Date coincident with or next following the one-year anniversary of
such Employee’s Employment Commencement Date, provided that he or she is still an Employee on such date. Despite the foregoing, each United Employee shall become eligible to participate in the Plan on the Entry Date that is the second month
following his or her Employment Commencement Date, provided that he or she is still a United Employee on such Entry Date, and each Former AGI Employee shall become eligible to participate in the Plan on November 1, 2007, provided that he or she
is an Employee on such date.” 
 3. Section 3.6(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(b) Rollover Contributions. A Participant’s Rollover Contributions shall be paid directly to the Trustee. The Trustee may commingle
such contributions with the Company’s contributions. However, the Committee shall keep separate records of each Participant’s Rollover Contributions (and the income, gains and losses on them). The Trustee shall invest a Participant’s
Rollover Contributions in the same manner as provided for with the investment of the Company’s contributions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Former AGI Employee may make a Rollover Contribution to the Plan in accordance with this
Section 3.6(b) whether or not he or she is then a Participant, provided that (i) any asset (including a loan note) so contributed or transferred is 

  

 -1- 








 
acceptable to the Committee and the Trustee, and (ii) such Rollover Contribution is completed within 31 days of the AGI Acquisition.” 

* * * * * 
 The Company has caused this
Amendment No. 7 to be signed on the date indicated below, to be effective as indicated above. 
  

									
		 		 	“Company”
			
		 		 	UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.
				
	Dated: September 26, 2007	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Robert M. Ling Jr.
		 		 		 		 	Its: Executive Vice President & General Counsel

  

 -2-
exv10w2



 




Exhibit 10.2



November 28, 2007



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL



Ms. Mariam Morris, Chief Accounting Officer

4520 East West Highway, 3rd Floor

Bethesda, Maryland 20814



     Re:     Amendment to Employment Agreement



Dear Mariam:



     This letter will reflect the agreement between you and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) upon certain amendments to the terms of the Employment Agreement between you and the
Company dated May 12, 2007.



     Effective as of the first payroll period in June 2007, your Base Salary has been increased to
the annual rate of $168,000. In addition, effective immediately, your Compensation Upon Severance
in the event the Company terminates (or elects not to renew) your Employment Agreement “without
cause,” or upon disability pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, or in the event you terminate
the Agreement for “good reason” has been altered to increase your lump-sum severance to a payment
equal to six (6) months of your then-current base salary. Your Compensation upon Severance has
also been altered to extend the period for which you are entitled to receive reimbursement for the
cost of continued health insurance coverage to a maximum of six (6) months after termination.



     Consistent with the requirements for modification set forth in Section 6.3 of the Employment
Agreement, this letter will document the mutual agreement between you and the Company to amend (1)
Section 3.1(a) of your Employment Agreement to reflect the foregoing increase in Base Salary, (2)
Section 4.4(a)(iii) of that agreement to reflect the foregoing increase in your Compensation Upon
Severance, and (3) Section 4.1(a),(i) of that agreement to alter the definition of “Benefit Period”
to mean “six (6) month period” rather than “two (2) month period.”



     The foregoing are the only changes to the terms of the Employment Agreement to be made at this
time. Please indicate your agreement to these modifications of the Employment Agreement by
countersigning the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below and returning the same
to me for the Company’s files.



     Thank you for your cooperation.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/  RYUJI UENO
 	 
	 	Ryuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D 	 
	 	President 	 
	 


Acknowledged and accepted this 10th day of December, 2007.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/  MARIAM MORRIS 	 	 
	Mariam Morris
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnersip 1988-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statemenst.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,431
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,678
<PP&E>                                         4,278,691
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,712,538)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 574,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          58,306
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     516,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   574,831
<SALES>                                        132,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,038
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  81,432<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                17,873
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            17,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   17,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Protocall Technologies Incorporated a Nevada corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                      |     |                        
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                      |     |                        
|Date: August 20, 2007 | By: | /s/ Bruce Newman       
|                      |     | Bruce Newman           
|                      |     | Chief Executive Officer
|                      |     |                        





|                      |     |                        
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                      |     |                        
|Date: August 20, 2007 | By: | /s/ Bruce Newman       
|                      |     | Bruce Newman           
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer
|                      |     |
Certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Andrew D. Owens, President and Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Quality Exchange, Inc., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Quality Exchange, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report ("Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

1.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors [or persons performing the equivalent function]:

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

1.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:

May 11, 2003

By:

/s/ Andrew D. Owens

Andrew D. Owens, President & CEO

Principal Financial Officer
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 2014

- 0105 Directorate ID : 2008

- SW

- 58

- AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus (Previously Eurocopter France) Model EC120B helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 115 Helicopters in the US Reg istry.

Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent e ngine

- to

- main gearbox coupling tube assembly failure, loss of engine drive, and a subsequent forced landing of the helicopter.

Costs : Parts per Helicopter $9,194 for installation of new mount ing arms and

brackets $14,621 for installation of the mounting spring kit Labor per Helicopter

(12 work

- hours X $85 for installation of new mounting

arms and brackets )

( 14 work

- hours for installation of the mounting spring kit)

(1 work

- hour for the dye

penetrant inspection ) $ 1,020

$1,190

$85

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $10,214 for installation of new mounting arms

and brackets $15,811 for installation of the mounting spring kit

Total U

. S

. Fleet Cost

Executive Order 12866 : C ould the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : James Blyn
[No. 29701-9-II.

Division Two.

April 13, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Brandy Elizabeth Douglas, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 02-1-01045-0, Karen L. Strombom, J., entered December 4, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
February 3, 2012 

Mr. Paul MacDonald 

Plant Manager 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc . 

171 Route 85 

P. O. Box 169 

Newfields, NH 03856 

Re : Draft Permit for Sealing Systems Manufacturing Operations and Proposed VOC RACT Order 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. 

171 Route 85, Newfields, New Hampshire 

Facility Identification #3301500046, Application # I1-0156 

Dear Mr. MacDonald: 

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division ("DES"), has prepared a draft 

permit and a proposed VOC RACT Order for the device(s) noted below. A public notice inviting comments on the draft 

permit and proposed VOC RACT Order will be published in the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Exeter News 

Letter . 

Close of Comment 

Devices Application Dates Notice Date Period 

Sealing Systems Manufacturing Operations November 9, 2009 

F e b ruary 3 , 2012 M arc h 5 , 2012 

VOC RACT Order August 11, 2011 

The application is for a revision to the VOC RACT Order to incorporate the modification to a production line and 

installation of a new thermal oxidizer control device, and to comply with the changes to the NH Code of Administrative 

Rules Env-A 1200, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) adopted June 

1, 2011 for the other process lines at the facility . 

A copy of the draft permit, proposed VOC RACT Order and public notice are enclosed . In accordance with 

Env-A 621 .05, and Env-A 1205.04(a), we are forwarding a copy of the draft permit and proposed VOC RACT Order, and 

public notice to the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for their review. We are also forwarding a 

copy of the draft permit and proposed VOC RACT Order to the Town of Newfields for their review . 

Comments must be received by DES by the close of the comment period. If you have any questions regarding this 

permit or VOC RACT Order, please contact me at (603) 271-0901 or via e-mail at Ratricia .northgdes.nh .~Lov . 

Sincerely, 

Patricia R. North 

Air Resources Division 

By certified mail # 7002 3150 0004 7243 7610 

Enclosures : Draft Permit, Application Review Summary, Proposed VOC RACT Order and Public Notice 

cc : Donald Dahl, USEPA Region I (via e-mail) 

Johnny Ray Evens, Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. 

Town of Newfields
[No. 29766-3-II.

Division Two.

May 4, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Joseph Brady, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-06116-1, Bruce W. Cohoe, J., entered December 12, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Morgan, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
Jeffery LOTTIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 104723

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: February 27, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 17, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied July 3, 2018

Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Appellant.

Joshua d. Hawley, Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Jeffery Lottie ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of three counts of second-degree assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, attempted first-degree robbery, five counts of armed criminal action, and one count of second-degree murder. Movant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for each count of second-degree assault, seven years' imprisonment for one count of armed criminal action and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, 15 years' imprisonment for attempted first-degree robbery, 25 years' imprisonment for each of the four remaining counts of armed criminal action, and life imprisonment for second-degree murder, for a total sentence of life plus 25 years. This Court affirmed Movant's convictions and sentences in *State v. Lottie*, 416 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). We affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).