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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

JULIO CESAR HERNANDEZ-TORRES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50337

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04508-BTM-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 3, 2015

Pasadena California

Before: REINHARDT, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Julio Cesar Hernandez-Torres appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C. §

1326(a) for being a previously deported alien found in the United States without

the consent of the Attorney General. 

FILED

MAR 12 2015

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.
Hernandez first argues that it is unclear whether the jury unanimously agreed

as to which of Hernandez’s three deportations provided the basis for the

“previously deported” element of the crime. The jury, however, was properly

instructed that all jurors had to agree unanimously on that point and “is presumed

to follow its instructions.” Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000).

Furthermore, in its verdict form, the jury stated: “We unanimously find that the

government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Julio CesarHernandez Torres was removed from the United States subsequent to December 6,

2010.” Only one of Hernandez’s deportations, the one from July 26, 2011, took

place “subsequent to December 6, 2010.” The verdict form thus shows that the jury

must have unanimously agreed that Hernandez was deported on July 26, 2011. 

Hernandez’s argument that a mens rea of specific intent should have been

required in his case is foreclosed by our precedent. Hernandez was charged with a

“found in” offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and we have held that this is a

general intent crime. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera–Sillas, 417 F.3d 1014, 1020

(9th Cir. 2005). 

Hernandez also appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

support his conviction, arguing that his crime was not yet complete when Agent

Ramirez found him one mile inside the country. Hernandez’s argument fails,

2
however, because he was not “in the constant visual or physical grasp of

governmental authorities after he crossed the border.” United States v.

Vela–Robles, 397 F.3d 786, 789 (9th Cir. 2005)). While Hernandez appears to have

triggered a seismic sensor upon crossing the border, “[d]etection by a seismic

sensor does not amount to observation or surveillance for the purpose of showing

official restraint.” Id. 

The judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. 

3
Jerry N. BUNYON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric Dewayne CURTIS v. MICHELS CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2019-C-543

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ALLEN**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Any dismissal not specifically designated "with prejudice" is considered to be "without prejudice." *See* La.C.C.P. art. 1673 ; *State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. A.P.* , 02-2372 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/20/03), 858 So.2d 498 ("[w]hen the judgment is silent as to whether it is being dismissed with or without prejudice, the dismissal must be without prejudice.")
United States District Court
Northern District of California

om ND HW BF WN

iN) RN NN NK NY Be ee we Be ee ee ee
BNRRARBBE BP Ge rWABDREBHReNS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,
Case No. 17-00326 BLF (PR)

, Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUESTING MORE

v. INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT

MCCALL FROM THE OFFICE OF
LEGAL AFFAIRS

NURSE RISENHOOVER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at Pelican Bay State Prison
(“PBSP”). On July 27, 2018, the Court issued an order of service directing the Clerk to
mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, and Waiver of
Service of Summons to Defendants. (Docket No. 53.) On September 12, 2018, the Office
of Legal Affairs of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
(“CDCR”), filed a letter with the Court indicating that Defendant McCall was “not
currently employed with the Department” and therefore it was “not authorized to receive
documents on behalf of the party.” (Docket No. 60.) On October 19, 2018, the Court
issued an order directing Plaintiff to provide more information for Defendant McCall.

(Docket No. 61.) Plaintiff has filed a notice of information regarding Defendant McCall.



United States District Court

Northern District of California

(Docket No. 64.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant McCall’s first name is Mariposa, and
that Defendant McCall provided PBSP inmates telemedicine/video mental health treatment
services. (/d.)

Given the information provided by Plaintiff, and in the interest of justice, the Court
requests the CDCR Office of Legal Affairs to provide the Court with any information
regarding the whereabouts of Defendant McCall. The Court requests notice confirming
that Mariposa McCall was an employee of CDCR, and if so, any forwarding information
available. If Mariposa McCall was not an employee of CDCR but rather a contract
employee, the Court requests the contracting agency’s name and contact information. The
Court requests the Office of Legal Affairs to file notification within twenty (28) days
from the date this order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: C Ved Lhe DIK

BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

Order Req. More Info. Re Def. McCall
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\00326Hollis_moreinfo-req
Re-inventing and Integrating Annual Economic Survey Programs

Edward Morgan - Discussant

2021 FCSM Research and Policy Conference

November 2, 2021

1

What’s the Motivation?

Stay relevant!

Improve efficiency and consistency

Meet data users needs

Provide timely, granular, and standardized data

Improve response rates

10/27/2021

2

2

Stakeholder Experience

Communication and stakeholder involvement

Solicitation of feedback

BEA, BLS, FRB, CMS, etc.

Within BEA: Regional, International, National teams

408 unique revenue questions that span ARTS, AWTS, ACES, ASM, M3, and SAS

Assets

Expenses

10/27/2021

3

3

Stakeholder Experience (cont.)

Stakeholder involvement

How does the stakeholder use data item?

Is this data item critical to the stakeholder?  

If data item is not critical, why and what other source is being used?

What stakeholder product is produced using data item?

What NAICS level and geographic level is needed?

When does the stakeholder need data item?

Follow-ups

10/27/2021

4

4

Upcoming Challenges 

Feedback channels

Timeseries continuity

Industry classification 

Data release timing and distribution 

10/27/2021

5

5

Next Steps

Pilot survey

Review results

Cognitive testing

Respondent education

Stakeholder debriefs

Continued stakeholder engagement

10/27/2021

6

6

# image2.png

# image1.png
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-77,810-03 WR-77,810-05 WR-77,810-06 WR-77,810-07 WR-77,810-08

EX P ARTE GLENN DIXON G REEN JR., Appli cant
ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. CR24783-A ,CR24784- A, CR24785- A, CR24096- A, & CR 24097-A IN THE 253RD DIST RICT COURT F ROM LIBERTY COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted five offe nses of burg lary o f a h abitation and sentenc ed to concur rent terms of 15 y ea rs’ im prisonment. Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was denied time cre dit while rele ased on parole
. Applicant has al l ege d fa cts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 508.283(b) and (c ); E x2

parte Spann, 132 S.W .3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Ac co rd i n gly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. The trial court shall order the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to obtain a response from a person with knowledg e of rele vant fac ts. I n d ev el oping the
rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at t he hearing
. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name
. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to Applicant’s claims. The trial c ourt may

make a ny other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate
. The trial court shall make fi ndings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order
. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclus ions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Oc tober 21, 2020 Do not publish
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40536 Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER

Brandon J. DURIVAGE ) Staff Sergeant (E

- 5 ) )

U.S. Air Force ) Appellant ) Panel 1

On 4 March 2024

, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Attach

. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a DD Form

2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special Courts

Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals , signed by Appellant
and Appellant’s counsel on 4 March 2024

. The Gover nment did not submit any
opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 7th day of March , 202 4

,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records
Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts

Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (20 24
ed.).

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE

, Capt , USAF Deputy Clerk of the Court
L.G., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

QUALCOMM INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 

DISCOVERY ORDER RE: 

QUALCOMM INTERROGATORIES

Re: Dkt. No. 434

To close out the year, the FTC and Qualcomm present a discovery dispute 

concerning how many interrogatories the FTC should be required to answer. Dkt. No. 434. 

The specific interrogatories are attached to the letter brief. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a) imposes limits on the number of interrogatories “including all discrete subparts” that 

may be asked absent court order. Here, the parties disagree in their counting of 

Qualcomm’s interrogatories. Are the subparts of Qualcomm’s interrogatories subsumed 

within the primary question (as Qualcomm asserts), or discrete questions (as the FTC 

asserts)?

If the Court were focused on the technical question only, it would find that 

Qualcomm has the better argument, but that reasonable minds could differ. But the Court 

has a broader interest. The Court may grant additional interrogatories in the interest of 

justice. Here, in weighing the usefulness of these interrogatories against the burden of 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 435 Filed 12/31/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

responding to them, the Court finds that there is good cause for the FTC to respond to all 

13 interrogatories and their subparts. Accordingly, the FTC is ordered to answer all the 

interrogatories by January 8, 2018. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejects the 

notion that Qualcomm’s interrogatories are premature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2017 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 435 Filed 12/31/17 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE BY

TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON

BRIAN C. LEIGHTON, CA BAR # 090907

Attorney at Law

701 Pollasky Avenue

Clovis, California 93612

Telephone: (559) 297-6190

Facsimile: (559) 297-6194

E-mail: bleighton@arrial.net

E-mail: kbarker@arrival.net

Attorney for JULIE WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIE WHITE, ) CASE NO. C-01-20985 JF (RS)

)

Plaintiff, ) REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS

) CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE

v. ) AND ORDER THEREON

)

DIGEX INCORPORATED, and )

DOES 1 through 10, ) DATE: December 9, 2005

) TIME: 10:30 a.m.

Defendants. ) CTRM: Three, Hon. J. Fogel

__________________________________________)

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-10(a), Plaintiff, JULIE WHITE (“White” or “Plaintiff”), requests

permission to participate in the Status Conference scheduled for December 9, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. by

telephone.

Plaintiff will be represented at the Status Conference by Brian C. Leighton, whose telephone

number is (559) 297-6190. Counsel will make arrangements with the Court’s teleconference services

for the telephonic appearance. 

DATED: November 29, 2005 __/S/ BRIAN C. LEIGHTON______ __

BRIAN C. LEIGHTON, attorney for Plaintiff

**E-filed 11/29/05**

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 78 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE BY

TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON 2

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may appear at the

Status Conference, set for December 9, 2005 at 10:30 a.m., by telephone.

DATE:_______________________ ________________________________________

The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

United States District Court Judge

11/29/05 /s/electronic signature authorized

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 78 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Law Offices of 

GEORGE C. BOISSEAU 

State Bar Number 75872

740 4th Street

Second Floor

Santa Rosa, California 95404

Phone: (707) 578-5636

Fax: (707) 578-1141

E-Mail: boisseaugc@msn.com

Attorney for Defendant

JEHOADDAN WILSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR-17-0028-JST ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER AUTHORIZING v. ) OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL ) JEHOADDAN WILSON, )) Defendant. ) )

Upon the request of the defendant, JEHOADDAN WILSON, by and through

defendant's counsel of record, George C. Boisseau, and upon agreement of the United States

and Pre-Trial Services, and good cause appearing because defendant has a funeral for a family

member in San Diego, which may require travel in both the Central and Southern District of

California, 

Defendant shall be allowed to travel to the Central and Southern Districts of California

for the funeral from September 27, 2017 to October 1, 2017. Pre-Trial Services shall impose

any reasonable conditions upon defendant while she is staying in the Central and Southern

Districts of California in their discretion. 

Defendant shall in advance advise Pretrial Services of her travel plans and Pretrial

Services may set reasonable conditions on defendant's travel in their discretion.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE ARE TO

REMAIN UNCHANGED.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: September 22, 2017

 /s/ 

GEORGE C. BOISSEAU

Attorney for Defendant

JEHOADDAN WILSON

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: September 22, 2017 /s/ ROBERT REES

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

Defendant shall be allowed to travel to the Central and Southern Districts of

California for the funeral of her family member from September 27, 2017 to October 1, 2017. 

Pre-Trial Services shall impose any reasonable conditions upon defendant while she is staying

in Southern California in their discretion. 

Defendant shall in advance advise Pretrial Services of her travel plans and Pretrial

Services may set reasonable conditions on defendant's travel in their discretion.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE ARE TO

REMAIN UNCHANGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

 

HON. KANDIS A WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of California 

9/25/17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTEN MUEHLENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00392-WHO 

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

BEYOND THE COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 41

In connection with their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 41], 

defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“the Chase Defendants”) 

also moved to file under seal certain exhibits [Dkt. No. 40], including copies of plaintiff’s credit 

reports. The Chase Defendants cite to and rely on these documents in their Motion to Dismiss 

without explaining why they should be permitted to refer to materials beyond the Second 

Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 38], nor do they move to judicially notice these documents. 

“When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, if a district court considers evidence 

outside the pleadings, it must normally convert the 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for 

summary judgment, and it must give the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond.” United 

States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)). “A court may, 

however, consider certain materials,” such as “documents incorporated by reference in the 

complaint, . . . without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” 

Id. at 908. A document “may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers 

extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. 

While I am inclined to find that these documents are incorporated by reference in her 

Second Amended Complaint because she refers extensively to them and they form the basis of 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

both her claims, plaintiff has not addressed whether these documents should be considered nor 

objected to their filing. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to address, in no more than five pages, whether 

she objects to the incorporation of her credit reports by reference by November 13, 2017 and how 

her interpretation of them differs from Chase’s in the event that I do consider them. Any response 

by the Chase Defendants of no more than five pages must be filed by November 15, 2017. The 

hearing on the Chase Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint shall be 

continued to November 22, 2017 at 10 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2017

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge
Carl EDGEFIELD v. AUDUBON NATURE INSTITUTE, INC., Audubon Commission and Scottsdale Insurance Company

NO. 2019-C-0638

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Judge Lobrano.

GENOVESE, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Judge Lobrano.
Exhibit 4.27

CENTERPULSE USA HOLDING CO.  12 East Greenway Plaza  Suite 1000  Houston, Texas 77046

January 6,
2003

SNIA
S.p.A.
Via Borgonuovo 14
20121 Milan, Italy

Gentlemen:

This
document constitutes Amendment No. 1 to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2002, among Centerpulse Ltd., Centerpulse USA Holding Co. and
SNIA S.p.A., (the "Purchase Agreement"). Centerpulse USA Holding Co. and SNIA S.p.A. agree, with respect to the non-competition period referred to in Section 5.07 of the Purchase
Agreement, that such period shall, for the market in Spain only, be reduced from five years to three years. If prior to or after the closing contemplated by the Purchase Agreement SNIA persuades the
Spanish Ministry of Economics and Trade to agree in writing to a five year non-competition period for the Spanish market, then this Amendment shall thereafter promptly be modified to
provide for the full five year non-competition period described in Section 5.07 of the Purchase Agreement for the market in Spain. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment.

|                        |  |                 |  | Sincerely,                 
|----------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                        |  |                 |  | CENTERPULSE USA HOLDING CO.
|                        |  |                 |  | By:                        
|                        |  |                 |  | Name:                      
|                        |  |                 |  | Title:                     
|                        |  |                 |  | CENTERPULSE LTD.           
|                        |  |                 |  | By:                        
|                        |  |                 |  | Name:                      
|                        |  |                 |  | Title:                     
|                        |  |                 |  | CENTERPULSE LTD.           
|                        |  |                 |  | By:                        
|                        |  |                 |  | Name:                      
|                        |  |                 |  | Title:                     
|Agreed to and Accepted: |  |                 |  |                            
|SNIA S.p.A.             |  |                 |  |                            
|By:                     |  | /s/CARLO VANOLI |  |                            
|Name:                   |  | Carlo Vanoli    |  |                            
|Title:                  |  | COO             |  |                            

---

QuickLinks