alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Singh Sandu, Respondent, v Kulwinder Singh Sandu, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 914]

Appeal from an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered October 14, 2010. The amended order and judgment granted the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and granted plaintiff judgment in the sum of $37,500, plus interest, costs and disbursements.

*1546It is hereby ordered that the amended order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an amended order and judgment that granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 and awarded him damages in the amount of the balance due on a promissory note executed by NANAK Hospitality, LLC (NANAK) and personally guaranteed by defendant, a partner of NANAK. We affirm.

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion by submitting the promissory note, which contained defendant’s personal guarantee, and evidence of NANAK’s default *(see LaMar v Vasile*[appeal No. 4], 49 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2008]; *Di Marco v Bombard Car Co., Inc.,*11 AD3d 960, 960-961 [2004]). In opposition thereto, defendant failed to “come forward with evidentiary proof showing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense of the note” *(Judarl v Cycletech, Inc.,*246 AD2d 736, 737 [1998]; *see Ring v Jones,*13 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2004]). Defendant’s bare assertion that he does not recall signing the promissory note is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether he personally guaranteed the note *(see generally John Deere Ins. Co. v GBE/Alasia Corp.,*57 AD3d 620, 621 [2008]; *Bank of Am. v Tatham,*305 AD2d 183, 183 [2003]). We reject defendant’s contention that the personal guarantee was not supported by consideration inasmuch as defendant concedes that the promissory note was executed in exchange for plaintiffs release of his entire interest in NANAK, and defendant benefitted from that release as a remaining partner of the company. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Centra, J.R, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Endocrinology and Reproduction.
    Date: August 5, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
1154, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef8b868e81818ac1878e9d8b96af818687c1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18588808f8f84cf8980938598a18f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 12, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15119 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 28, 2013

s0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146907 & (46)

MONIQUE BAKER McCORMICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146907

COA: 314086

BURTON M. LELAND,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

WAYNE COUNTY CLERK,

Intervening-Defendant-Appellee,

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0644

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

CHRIS LANDON LOBERG,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Heather Perry, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0644
# C_2019348EN.01000201.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2019 — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

(Case C-449/19)

(2019/C 348/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WEG Tevesstraße

Defendant: Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

Question referred

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the supply of heat by associations of residential property owners to those owners is exempt from value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
|   | 1. | The Company's Form 10-Q/A Quarterly Report (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended April 30, 2010 (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/ Henry P. Herms                           |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | Henry P. Herms                                                                                                                                                                 |
|               | Vice President - Finance and                                                                                                                                                   |
| September 14, 2010 |              Chief Financial Officer                                                                               |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11287 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ALBINO GARZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 30

- 2

Before KING , OWEN , and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Albino Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garza h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’ s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24 , 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11287 Document: 00514207088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017No. 16

- 11287

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-11287 Document: 00514207088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
#### ROEHRS, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN REFRIGERATING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Action by Julius Roehrs against the Manhattan Refrigerating Company. W. H. Harris, for appellant. E. S. Hatch, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 13.1


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Torm A/S (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacob Meldgaard, 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: April 30, 2012











/s/ Jacob Meldgaard


Jacob Meldgaard


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2019399EN.01002001.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-231/18: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO - Lupu (Djili)

(Case C-293/19 P)

(2019/C 399/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (represented by: C-R Romițan, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 2 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam shall bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of HireRight, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric J. Boden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|Date: March 10, 2008 |  | By: | /s/ERIC J. BODENEric J. Boden Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2024

DONNA M. CONNER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; TIM STEPHEN; SANDRA 

STERN; JESSICA BARONDES, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:04-cv-00117-HCM-JEB) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donna Marie Conner, Appellant Pro Se. David James Sensenig, 

LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, Charles Michael Sims, 

LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Donna Marie Conner appeals the district court’s order 

denying her Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Conner’s motion 

to appoint counsel and transfer case, and affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Conner v. Lions Gate Entm't 

Corp., No. 4:04-cv-00117-HCM-JEB (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2008). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
# Europos Sąjungos C 88A/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 88A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 65 metai2022m. vasario 24d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 88A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

65 metai2022m. vasario 24d.

---

| Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Europos Komisija |
| 2022/C 88 A/01 | Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendroji įmonė. Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Pranešimas apie konkursą Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendrosios įmonės vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2022/20075 ( OL C 48 A, 2022 1 31 ) | 1 |

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Komisija

2022/C 88 A/01

Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendroji įmonė. Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Pranešimas apie konkursą Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendrosios įmonės vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2022/20075 ( OL C 48 A, 2022 1 31 )

( OL C 48 A, 2022 1 31 )

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Komisija

| 2022 2 24 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2022 2 24

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 88/1

---

Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendroji įmonė. Pranešimas, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Pranešimas apie konkursą Novatoriškų sveikatos sprendimų iniciatyvos bendrosios įmonės vykdomojo direktoriaus pareigoms (AD 14 lygio laikinasis darbuotojas). COM/2022/20075

(
  Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys C 48 A, 2022 m. sausio 31 d.
  )

(2022/C 88 A/01)

5 puslapis, „Galutinis terminas“, pirma pastraipa:

| yra: | „Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2022 m. vasario 28 d. 12 val. Briuselio laiku; vėliau registracija negalima.“, |
| --- | --- |

yra:

„Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2022 m. vasario 28 d. 12 val. Briuselio laiku; vėliau registracija negalima.“,

| turi būti: | „Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2022 m. kovo 14 d. 12 val. Briuselio laiku; vėliau registracija negalima.“ |
| --- | --- |

turi būti:

turi būti:

„Galutinis registracijos terminas – 2022 m. kovo 14 d. 12 val. Briuselio laiku; vėliau registracija negalima.“

---
#### Jose Raposo, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 337]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered September 23, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on a substance as he descended a stairway in defendant’s building, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not have notice of the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff to fall. Defendant’s caretaker testified that he followed the janitorial schedule pursuant to which he would have inspected all the staircases in the morning and afternoon, mopped the stairs any time he encountered a wet condition, replaced any light bulbs that were not functioning, and reported the condition to his supervisor *(see Torres v New York City Hous. Auth.,*85 AD3d 469 [2011]; *Love v New York City Hous. Auth.,*82 AD3d 588 [2011]; *Raghu v New York City Hous. Auth.,*72 AD3d 480, 481-482 [2010]).

*534Plaintiffs opposition does not raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence fails to demonstrate a specific recurring dangerous condition routinely left unaddressed by defendant, as opposed to a mere “general awareness” of such a condition, for which defendant is not liable *(see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]; *DeJesus v New York City Hous. Auth.,*53 AD3d 410, 411 [2008], *affd*11 NY3d 889 [2008]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
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 pane 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 C A N D I D O R O S A S O C A M P O ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, 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. 07- 74381 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 296- 457

A 095- 296- 458 A 095- 296- 459 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 ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , M cK E O W N , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C andi do R osas O cam po , V i ct ori a S anchez H ernand ez , and thei r s on , nat i ves and c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED APR14 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74381 2 pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m o tio n to r e o p e n . S i n gh v . I NS , 295 F . 3d 1037, 1039 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en because the m ot i on fa i l ed t o setforth any new fa ct s or s ub m i tany new evi dence contraryt o the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s di sposi t i ve det erm i nat i on thatthey f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e the c ont i nuous phy s i c a l pr e s e nc e r e qui r e d f orc anc e l l a t i on of r e m o v a l. Se e id . ( T h e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n s h a ll b e r e v e r s e dif it is “a rb itr ary , irr a tio n a l, o rc o n tr aryto law .” ) ; s e e al s o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) . P e titio n e r s ’ du e p r o c e s s c la im th e r e f o r e f a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 12 46 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( re qu i ri ng error f or du e proces s vi ol at i on ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Orgenesis Inc.: Exhibit 10.4 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 

The undersigned, owner of shares in Orgenesis Inc. hereby
grants a special power of attorney to Mr Paul Hermant and/or Mrs Marie
Pètre, lawyers, with offices at Avenue Louise 235, 1050 Brussels, Belgium,
to fill in and execute any forms required to be filled in and/or executed in
order for the undersigned to comply with the reporting obligations under the
applicable U.S. securities legislation and, in general, to do all that is
necessary and/or useful, in the manner and form deemed appropriate by the proxy
holder, with promise to ratify the proxy holder's actions if necessary, to
achieve the above. 

This power is governed by Belgian law. Any dispute shall be
settled by the courts of Brussels (Belgium). 

Signed in Brussels, on 10 March 2015 

/s/ Hugues Bultot 

HUGUES BULTOT
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo BALTAZAR-MORALE, a.k.a. Sergio Lopez-Luna, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10438

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 23, 2011.

Karin B. Hoppmann, Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O’Neill, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Anne Frances Borghetti, Anne F. Bor-ghetti, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and KRAVTTCH, Circuit Judges.

*644PER CURIAM:

Pablo Baltazar-Morale appeals his sentence of ten months of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e). Baltazar-Morale argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Baltazar-Morale, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of bank fraud, and in February 2010, Baltazar-Morale was deported from the United States on three years of supervised release subject to the condition that he refrain from reentering the United States without permission. In June 2010, Baltazar-Morale reentered the United States using a false identity, and later he received a sentence of three years of imprisonment for that crime. Baltazar-Morale argued for leniency based on his youth, his lack of education, and his need to support family in Mexico, but the district court was “struck by [Baltazar-Mo-rale’s] series of determined and unhesitating violations, despite ... admonitions from” the court and “his agreement to abide by those obligations.” The district court reasonably determined that a sentence of ten months of imprisonment that ran consecutive to Baltazar-Morale’s three-year sentence for his illegal reentry would best address the “persistence of his offenses” and his “disregard for the law,” and would provide “enhanced deterrence and ... protect the public.” Baltazar-Morale’s sentence, which is within the guideline range and falls well below the statutory maximum sentence, is reasonable.

We AFFIRM Baltazar-Morale’s sentence.