alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. San Andres LOZANO-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50577.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

DECIDED: May 3, 2004.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, *226TX, Mara A. Blatt, US Attorney’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mike Barclay, Law Offices of Mike Barclay, Alpine, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

San Andres Lozano-Rubio was convicted on his conditional guilty plea of possession with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and argues that the stop of the truck which he was driving was not supported by reasonable suspicion and, as a result, the marijuana seized and the post-arrest statements he made should be suppressed.

Lozano-Rubio has waived his argument that the “helicopter search” of his vehicle was impermissible by failing to raise it in the district court. *See United States v. Carreorir-Palacio,*267 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir.2001); *United States v. Harrelson,*705 F.2d 733, 738 (5th Cir.1983).

The following facts, among others, were considered in determining that there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop of the truck which Lozano-Rubio was driving: (1) at the time the truck was initially spotted, the truck was very close to the border and was traveling with a white Oldsmobile, which was the subject of a “be-on-the-lookout” report and owned by a known drug trafficker; (2) the truck matched the description of a truck owned by a known drug trafficker; (3) both the Oldsmobile and the truck had two-way radio antennas attached to their roofs; (4) the truck was stopped in an area known for illegal trafficking; (5) the area in which the truck was traveling is known to be used to circumvent a checkpoint; (6) the agents were experienced in cases involving illegal aliens and controlled substances; (7) Lozano-Rubio decelerated and accelerated for no apparent reason and immediately braked and veered onto the shoulder of the road when he saw a marked patrol car; (8) when a helicopter was approximately 50 feet away from the truck, Lozano-Rubio did not acknowledge the helicopter but merely maintained his speed; and (9) when the truck hit bumps and turned a corner sharply, diesel fuel was emitted from the fuel tank.

As a result of the foregoing, we conclude that there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop of the truck. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the seizure of the marijuana and the post-arrest statements made by Lozano-Rubio. *See United States v. Inocencio,*40 F.3d 716, 722-24 (5th Cir.1994).

Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3460

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T YU QU N H UA NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72497 A ge nc yN o. A 044- 999- 326 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , O ’S C A N N L A I N , an dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . Y u Q un H ua ng, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j ud ge’ s orderfi nd i ng H uang re m ov abl e and denyi ng her app l i cat i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1186a ( c ) ( 4) ( B ) f orw a i ve rof

the j oi ntf

i l i ng r e qui r e m e ntt o r e m ove the



# FI LED JU N 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72497 2 c ondi t i ona l ba s i s of

he rl a w f ul pe rm ane ntr e s i de nts t a tus . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of th e w a iv e r , O ropeza-W

on g v. G on zales , 406 F . 3d 1135, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , and w e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty f i nd i ng w here the r e c or d r e ve a l s s e ve r a l i nt e rna l i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n H uang’ s t e s t i m onyr e gar di ng her and her f

orm erspou se ’ s l i vi ng arrang em ent s, w here her f orm erspou se l i ved aft er h i s su rg ery, an dw h o caredfo r h i m du ri n g h i s co n v al escen ce. B ecau se th ese i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the he a rtof w he the rthe m arr i a ge w a s e nt e r e d i nt o i n good f a ith , s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e d e n ia l o f H u an g ’s w a iv e rap p lic a tio n . See id . a t 1 1 4 8 ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 6 a ( c ) ( 4 ) ( a lie n m u s t d e m o n s tr a te e lig ib ilityf o rs a id w a iv e r ) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
Why It’s Important to Keep Hot Foods Hot...

100°C

194 90
Always Maintain
Hot Food at
158|470 135°F (57°C) or
Above!

176 80

140 60

12 /gs0 Remember:

104 40 Keep Foods
out of the

ss [aso Temperature
Danger Zone

63 {20 41°F — 135°F
(5°C - 57°C)!

50 10

32 0

—<

Protect People Everywhere.
Always Maintain Hot Food at 135°F or Above.

Lo YEE
@ Poa ¥*
Javarous M. PETERSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9193.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
EXHIBIT 10.10



[exhibit1010002.gif]



---

[exhibit1010004.gif]



---

[exhibit1010006.gif]



---

[exhibit1010008.gif]



---

[exhibit1010010.gif]



---

[exhibit1010012.gif]



---

[exhibit1010014.gif]



---

[exhibit1010016.gif]



---

[exhibit1010018.gif]



---

[exhibit1010020.gif]



---

[exhibit1010022.gif]



---

[exhibit1010024.gif]



---

[exhibit1010026.gif]
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fushi
Copperweld, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of his knowledge:





(1) The
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





November
9, 2009





/s/
      Li FuLi
      FuChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





/s/
      Beihong Linda ZhangBeihong
      Linda ZhangChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Freddie Lamont CLECKLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9484.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:



|September 17, 2003 |  |  | /s/MARK SHEFTSMark Shefts
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  |  | -------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                  /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Paul W. Mobley
                                  Chief Executive Officer of Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                  August 11, 2003
Teresa L. WILLS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9787.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,146
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                       992
<INVENTORY>                                     11,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,889
<PP&E>                                          55,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,532)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,648
<SALES>                                         32,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,540
<CGS>                                           21,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (64)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1472 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Tito Puente 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

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

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Tito Puente Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TITO PUENTE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 167 East 124th Street in New 

6 York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Tito Puente Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•HR 1472 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tito Puente Post Of3 fice Building’’. 

Æ
#### Randy DRINKWALTER, Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE; Mike Kenney; Douglas K. Diltz; Frank X. Hopkins; Teresa Predmore; Kimberly L. Cockrell; Robert C. Ryan; Officer McPherrin, in their official and individual capacities, Appellees.

No. 03-2278.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2004.

Decided: May 3, 2004.

Randy Drinkwalter, Nebraska State Penitentiary, Lincoln, NE, pro se.

Jennifer M. Tomka, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*427PER CURIAM.

Nebraska inmate Randy Drinkwalter appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit arising out of a disciplinary conviction (later reversed), which led to his extended confinement in segregation. Appellees have moved for summary affirmance. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper and an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Profit Share Program letter, dated January 1, 2003



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 [LOGO] 
  
 FIRST AMERICAN 
 PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 
  
 January 1,
2003 
  
 Multifamily Community Insurance Agency,
Inc. 
 11140 Rockville Pike, PMB 1200 
 Rockville, MD 20852 
  
 Re: Profit Share Program 
  
 Dear Nevel, 
  
 The profit share program is a big
factor in the growth and profitability of this program and company. 
  
 In order
for the company to better estimate and expense the total pay out for this program for any one year, the average loss incurred amount for your brokerage of the most recent calendar year, will be used to calculate the pay out for each year.

  
 First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company must end each year
with an overall loss ratio of 65.0% or less in order to pay out any profit share bonus money. 
  
 In order for your brokerage to participate in this program, your year-end loss ratio must be 40.0% or lower. Our Company expense percentage will be fixed at the industry standard 36%. The loss ratio and percentage of
profit is based on Earned Premium during the calendar year. 
  
 As you can see in
the example on the next page, your 20% profit share percentage is designed to encourage growth and to reward profitability. 
  
 Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns. 
  
 Best regards, 
  
 /s/ Kelly Dunn 
  









 [LOGO] 
  
 FIRST AMERICAN 
 PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 
  
 Profit Share Calculation

  

												
	 Written Premium:
	  	$	1,000,000	 	 	 	 	 	$	3,000,000	 
				
	 Earned Premium:
	  	$	1,000,000	 	 	 	 	 	$	3,000,000	 
				
	 Losses Incurred @ 40%:
	  	$	(375,000	)	 	(@35	%	 	$	1,050,000	)
				
	 Company Expenses @ 36% X E/P):
	  	$	(360,000	)	 	 	 	 	$	(1,080,000	)
				
	 Profit:
	  	$	265,000	 	 	 	 	 	$	870,000	 
				
	 Profit Share Pay Out (20% X Profit):
	  	$	53,000	 	 	 	 	 	$	174,000
Torrey MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9282.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Eugene Darrel RUTLEDGE, petitioner, v. M.D. McDONALD, Warden.

No. 12-7435.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Clyde Kirby WHITLEY, petitioner, v. Frank STRADA, et al.

No. 12-9268.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
---

Exhibit 99.21

MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATESMINE ENGINEERING SERVICES
 CONSENT OF EXPERT To:
        United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionManitoba Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionAutorité des marchés financiersNew Brunswick Securities CommissionNorthwest Territories Registrar of SecuritiesNova Scotia Securities CommissionNunavut Registrar of SecuritiesPrince Edward Island Securities OfficeSaskatchewan Financial Services CommissionSecurities Commission of Newfoundland and LabradorYukon Registrar of Securitie Rio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re:Technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Shahuindo Heap Leach Project, Cajabamba Peru” datedNovember 9, 2012”, (the “Report” prepared for Sulliden Gold Corporation Ltd.) I, Paul Tietz, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 40-F"), and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorizes the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report. DATED the 13thday of March 2015 By:
        /s/ “Paul Tietz”Name: Paul TietzCompany: Mine Development Associates, Inc.Title: Senior Project Geologist
  775-856-5700 210 South Rock Blvd.
    Reno, Nevada 89502
    FAX: 775-856-6053


---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145689 & (11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145689

COA: 310285

Macomb CC: 2001

- 000827

- FC

PHILLIP J. POWELL JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand is

DENIED.
The Cheesecake Factory Inc.




	




EXHIBIT 10.19 



 FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY INCORPORATED
 EXECUTIVE SAVINGS PLAN 



        This
First Amendment to The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated Executive Savings Plan, is
effective as of December 1, 2000. 



RECITALS 



        1.     The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated (the “Company”) established an
          unfunded deferred compensation plan entitled The Cheesecake Factory Executive
          Savings Plan (the “Plan”), with an effective date of October 1, 1999.  



        2.
          All capitalized terms used in this First Amendment shall have the meaning
giving           such term in the Plan.  



        3.
          The Administrative Committee of the Plan, by unanimous decision desires to
amend           Section 6.1(c) of the Plan, effective December 1, 2000, in order to
provide more           flexibility in the method of distribution of payments to
beneficiaries of           deceased Participants in the Plan.  



AMENDMENT 



        The
Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.1(c) of the Plan in its entirety and
replacing such section with the following: 



        If
so designated by the Participant in his/her election to defer, the Beneficiaries of a
Participant who dies while employed by the Company may elect that amounts credited to the
Participant’s Accounts shall be paid to the Participant’s Beneficiary in a lump
sum as soon as is administratively feasible provided that such Participant designated in
his/her election deferral that his/her Beneficiaries may elect a lump sum death payment.
If a Participant dies either before or after terminating employment and while receiving
installment payments of his or her Accounts, the balance of the Participant’s
Accounts will be paid to the Participant’s Beneficiary in the form of a lump sum as
soon as is administratively feasible; provided, however, if the remaining balance of such
a deceased Participant’s account equals or exceeds $50,000, then within sixty (60)
days of the death of such Participant, his/her Beneficiary may elect to continue
installment payments over either 5, 10, or 15 years by written election to the Plan
Administrator. 



        Except
as herein modified, all other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force
and effect. 






Page 1 of 2  














	




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this First Amendment to be executed as of this 1st day of December, 2000. 










			     The
      Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 

      

            By:  /S/ DAVID OVERTON 

                  ———————————————————

                         David
      Overton

      

            Its:  President and Chief
      Executive Officer

      

      

            By:  /S/ GERALD W. DEITCHLE

                  ———————————————————

                         Gerald
      W. Deitchle

      

            Its:  Executive Vice President
      and Chief Financial 

                    Officer

      

      




	


Page 2 of 2