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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

SISSY JAZMIN SOLANO-YANEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50056

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02401-WQH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Sissy Jazmin Solano-Yanez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We

FILED

OCT 03 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for

resentencing.

Solano-Yanez argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role

reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Solano-Yanez

was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794

(“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. 

The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. See United States

v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should

receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare her to the other

participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. See

U.S.S.G. App. C. Amend. 794; Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the

Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or

indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors

that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role

reduction. See id. Because we cannot determine from the record whether the

district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and

considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Solano-Yanez’s sentence and

2 15-50056
remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at

523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 

3 15-50056
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Diana SALDANA-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50594

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2009.

*858Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jack R. Stern, Del Rio, TX, for Defendanh-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Diana Saldana-Limon (Saldana) appeals the 57-month sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. Saldana argues that the district court erred in calculating the advisory guidelines range because it imposed a 16-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based on her prior state *859conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Although she concedes that this issue is controlled by this court’s decision in *United States v. Ford,*509 F.3d 714 (5th Cir.2007), cert. *denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 44, 172 L.Ed.2d 51 (2008), Saldana argues that case was wrongly decided. Because *Ford*supports the application of the adjustment and this court is bound to apply its own precedent absent an intervening change in the law, Saldana’s argument is without merit. *See Ford,*509 F.3d at 717; *United States v. Treft,*447 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir.2006).

Saldana has waived any argument regarding the evidence used to establish her prior conviction by not arguing this issue in the body of her brief. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Even if she had properly raised this issue, she could not establish plain error because the record was supplemented with documentation that establishes that the prior offense involved possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, John R. Hickey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Renaissance Learning, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: November 6, 2003
      ----------------

                                          /s/ John R. Hickey
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John R. Hickey
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR VALLEY NATIONAL GASES INCORPORATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001030715
<NAME> VALLEY NATIONAL GASES INCORPORATED
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         706,263
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,556,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,750
<INVENTORY>                                  7,421,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,981,848
<PP&E>                                      56,111,812
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,911,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,330,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,171,512
<BONDS>                                     37,043,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,385
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,044,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,053,946
<SALES>                                     20,621,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,621,152
<CGS>                                        9,474,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,474,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,262,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             571,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,373,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                   549,567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            824,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   824,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Kenneth J.Saunders, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Peregrine Systems, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|        | Date:                                                          | April 29, 2005 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
|   | /s/ Kenneth Saunders                                           |
|   | Kenneth J. Saunders                                            |
|   | *Executive Vice President & Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Terry TYLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Paul A. KASTNER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 11-6170.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2011.

Terry Tyler, Petersburg, VA, pro se.

H. Lee Schmidt, Office of the United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani*414mously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 84(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Terry Tyler, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the district court’s order of dismissal.

Tyler filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma asserting the Bureau of Prisons erroneously denied his request for pre-release transfer to a residential re-entry center. The government moved to dismiss Tyler’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The district court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, noting that at the time he filed the petition, Tyler was detained in a federal prison facility in Virginia.

The district court’s conclusion it lacked jurisdiction over Tyler’s § 2241 petition is indisputably correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (providing that district courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions”); *id.*§ 2242 (providing that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner]”); *id.*§ 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”); *Rumsfeld v. Padilla,*542 U.S. 426, 447, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (‘Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”). Accordingly, for those reasons set out by the district court, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s order of dismissal. Furthermore, because Tyler has failed to make a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on appeal, we DENY his motion to proceed on appeal *in forma pauperis*and order him to remit the full appellate filing fee forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the *414case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
# C_2019182EN.01003702.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/37

---

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTwo)

(Case T-203/19)

(2019/C 182/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CaraTwo — Application for registration No 15 170 145

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 851/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 768) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 768) in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6706

RANDY M. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOPE SELLERS, Nurse; DEBORAH WILLIAMS; DEBORAHBURLESON, Nurse; GREGORY Q. THOMPSON, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-188-3-MU) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy M. King, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Randy M. King appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See King v. Sellers , No. CA-97-188-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2467

___________________________

Jerry Champion,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Lakeisha Akins, Originally Sued As Keisha Akin; Danny Burl, Warden, East

ArkansasRegionalUnit,ADC;ToddBall,Warden,East Arkansas RegionalUnit,ADC,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: December 26, 2012

Filed: February 25, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Jerry Champion brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming

defendant prison personnel knew of but disregarded his medically prescribed diet in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court granted defendants’

1

summary judgment motions and denied Champion’s. He appeals.

Champion argues that defendant Officer Akins knewofChampion’s prescribed

diet and then deliberate disregarded it. The undisputed evidence showed that Warden

Burl’s investigation into Champion’s grievance revealed that the kitchen staff

mistakenly had omitted Champion from the roster of diet-meal recipients. At most,

therefore, the evidence might show that Akins was negligent in failing to recognize

or accommodate Champion’s diet despite the failure of the kitchen staff to include

Champion on the roster used by Akin. A showing of negligence is insufficient to

establish liability under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 835, 837 (1994). 

Champion did not exhaust his administrative remedies asto defendantsWarden

Burl and Warden Ball. While he addressed them as readers in his grievances about

Akins, he did not state in any exhausted grievance how Burl and Ball were involved

in the grieved incidents, as required by the Arkansas Department of Correction

grievance policy. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (prisoner must exhaust administrative

remedies before bringing suit under federal law); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218

(2007) (“The level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance

procedures will vary from system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s

requirements . . . that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

We deny Champion’s pending motions.

_____________________________

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Court for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, as to two of the motions adopting the report and

recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge

for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                CORESTAFF, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES



Colorado Therapists On Call, Inc., a Colorado corporation
COMSYS Technical Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Acquisition Sub #5, Inc., a Colorado corporation
COREStaff Acquisition Sub #6, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Acquisition Sub #7, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Communication Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Consolidated Management Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Personnel Systems, Inc., a California corporation
COREStaff Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Services (California), Inc., a Delaware corporation
COREStaff Support Services, Inc., a California corporation
COREStaff (UK) Limited, a U.K. corporation
EUROCOMSYS (UK) Limited, a U.K. corporation
Leafstone, Inc., a New York corporation
Professional Healthcare Providers, Inc., a California corporation
Regency Staffing, Inc., a Florida corporation
Technology and Process Consulting, Inc., a Delaware corporation