alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Abel Yudico LAZCANO, etc., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-50201.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted, Aug. 2, 2010.

Filed March 25, 2011.

James Michael Left, Special Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kathryn Ann Young, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, and WHYTE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

I

Defendant Abel Yudico Lazcano contends that he failed to register as a sex offender in an attempt to avoid detection as an illegal alien, and, therefore, his conviction for failing to register should have been considered relevant conduct to his current immigration offense and not part of his criminal history.

We have recently held that conduct which occurred “in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility” for the crime of conviction constitutes relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) of the Sentencing Guidelines. *United, States v. Rivera-Gomez,*634 F.3d 507, 514-16 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not have the benefit of that decision when it sentenced Lazcano. Therefore, we must vacate Lazcano’s sentence and remand so that the district court can make a factual finding as to Lazcano’s motivation for failing to register and re-sentence Lazcano as appropriate. The district court at the time of sentencing made no express finding on the question of whether defendant failed to register “in the course of attempting to *657avoid detection or responsibility for [his current immigration offense.]” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(A).

II

Lazcano correctly asserts that the judgment erroneously recites that he was convicted of “the offense of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).” Section 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor, however, and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Gomez-Mendez,*486 F.3d 599, 605-06 (9th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*552 U.S. 1015, 128 S.Ct. 545, 169 L.Ed.2d 382 (2007). Therefore, on remand, the district court is instructed to delete from the judgment the reference to a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).

III

The parties agree that the district court erred in issuing a written judgment that was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. When there is a conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment and commitment order, the oral pronouncement controls. *United States v. Napier,*463 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2006). On remand, the district court can ensure that the written judgment is consistent with the oral pronouncement of Lazcano’s new sentence.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Thomas J. Hailey v. Wright T. Pollard.

Where the defendant proved that the consideration of a note was Confederate money, and therefore void, and the proof was that it was given for horses, about the value of which there was no proof, the court (the case was tried by the judge) did right to find the law and the facts for the plaintiff.

Error from Harris. The ease was tried before Hon. Behjamih Shropshire, one of the district judges.

The facts are sufficiently indicated in the opinion and in the syllabus. It was simply a defense not proved.

*Sender son §• Whitfield,*for appellant.

*Gray Botts,*for appellee.

Morrill, O. J.

—Pollard, as indorsee of a promissory note made by Hailey, brought suit thereon, to which Hai*605ley pleaded that the payment of the note was to be made in Confederate money, and that this money was worth only one-fifth of its nominal value.

The cause was submitted to the judge without a jury, who gave a judgment on the note for the sum called for therein. Quite a number of witnesses were examined upon the question at issue, and, among others, the payee of the note. We concur in the views of the district judge both as to the facts and the law, and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 246 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 246

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2015

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking.

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

SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING.

    Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended by striking ``child 
prostitution'' and inserting ``child sex trafficking, including child 
prostitution''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2022361EN.01003801.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/38

---

P9_TA(2022)0092

Automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Italy *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Italy (14836/2021 — C9-0002/2022 — 2021/0806(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 361/12)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (14836/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (14836/2021),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0002/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0002/2022),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0046/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0046/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2433 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 

enhancing combination products review. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to enhancing combination products review. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENHANCING COMBINATION PRODUCTS RE4 VIEW. 

5 Section 503(g)(4)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

6 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(g)(4)(C)) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(iii) Not later than 18 months after the date 

9 of the enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, the 

10 Secretary shall issue final guidance that describes 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2433 IH

1 the responsibilities of each agency center regarding 

2 its review of combination products. The Secretary 

3 shall, after soliciting public comment, review and up4 date the guidance periodically.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2000 and the
unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months
ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,184
<SECURITIES>                                 2,799,072
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,790
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,153,562
<PP&E>                                         273,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,719,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,046,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,318
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,673,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,719,953
<SALES>                                        443,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               712,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               332,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (23,317)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                141,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            141,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                212,073
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   353,191
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Genaro Guerrero, VicePresident Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Genaro  Guerrero                                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Genaro Guerrero                                     |
|   | Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

May 7, 2009

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to Southern CopperCorporation and will be retained by Southern Copper Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.4


                            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 Annual Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
this Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K/A for the year ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James McKeever, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


Dated:   July 29, 2004              By: /s/ James McKeever
                                        -------------------
                                           James McKeever
                                           Interim Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on this Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### ROCHESTER & K. F. LAND CO., Respondent, v. ROE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by the Boehester & Kettle Falls Land Company against John O. Boe.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 casts. All concur. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 72, 799.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: B.P.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 82 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.J.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.P.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 84 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.D.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 85 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Danny MADRID, Petitioner—Appellee, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Respondent—Appellant.

No. 08-16416.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued Aug. 12, 2010.

Resubmitted March 25, 2011.

Filed March 25, 2011.

Monica Knox, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Danny Madrid, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Pamela B. Hooley, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Danny Madrid was convicted in 1981 of second degree murder, attempted murder, and two attempted robberies, and sentenced to prison for twenty years to life. In 2006, the parole board denied him parole. The California courts denied Madrid’s habeas petition concluding that there was “some evidence” to support the board’s decision. Madrid sought federal habeas relief, which the district court granted on the ground that he “had been denied parole solely on the basis of immutable factors of his commitment offense, previous record of violence and social history,” and that, under California law, these do not amount to “some evidence that he is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if released.” The state timely appealed.

While this appeal has been pending, Madrid was granted parole and was released from custody in February 2010. His release does not moot this appeal because, as the parties agree, the district court’s order requires the state to credit Madrid’s “five year parole period” with the time between the 2006 denial of parole and his 2010 release.

Also, while this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In *Swarthout,*the Court stated that “it is no federal concern here whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” *Id.*at *672863. It held that the Federal Due Process Clause requires a California inmate to receive only “an opportunity to be heard and ... a statement of the reasons why parole was denied,” and noted that the “correct application of the State’s ‘some evidence’ standard” is not required by the Federal Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 861-62. Because the district court — not having the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance— granted relief by construing an error of state law as constituting a violation federal of due process, its grant of the habeas petition is

REVERSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

                     AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                 ENTERED INTO ON JANUARY 1, 1995 BY AND BETWEEN
                  THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND 
                RAY RODRIGUEZ, AS AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 1996, AND 
                   JANUARY 1, 1997 (THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT")

                              December 22, 1997 

To:  Mr. Ray Rodriguez
     c/o The Univision Network Limited Partnership ("Univision")

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

     Your Employment Agreement became effective on January 1, 1995 and will 
expire on December 31, 1999 (the "Term"). Univision desires to extend the 
Term an additional one year period. You and we hereby agree to amend the 
Employment Agreement as follows:

     1.  TERM. The Term is hereby extended for an additional one year period. 
The Employment Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2000, unless earlier 
terminated in accordance with the terms set forth in the Employment Agreement.

     2.  SALARY. Your Base Salary for calendar years 1998 and 1999 shall 
continue at the annual rate of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000), 
as provided in the first and second amendments to your Employment Agreement. 
Your annual Base Salary rate for calendar year 2000 shall be Seven Hundred 
Thousand Dollars ($700,000).

     3.  OTHER. Except as provided in this Amendment No. 3, all other terms 
and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full 
force and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the Employment 
Agreement, as amended.

     4.  EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT NO. 3. Upon its execution by you and 
Univision, this Amendment No. 3 shall become effective as of the date first 
written above.

     Please indicate your agreement to this Amendment No. 3 to the 
Employment Agreement by signing this letter amendment in the space provided 
below.

                                       THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       By: UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC., 
                                           General Partner

                                       By: /s/ GEORGE W. BLANK
                                          ---------------------------
                                           George W. Blank
                                           Chief Financial Officer

I have read the preceding Amendment No. 3 and agree to its terms and 
conditions:

/s/ RAY RODRIGUEZ
---------------------
    Ray Rodriguez
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eonarable 0. X. Talbbt 

aolmty AttoraQy 

asamp, Terse ' 

BQar 81lY oplnlon lo. 0: 

Ret AddlW lltoenre s 6 

OS aomnerala IQl@l 

8h be puld in uat 

of 

A 4 

'II Pe8idQaoe 

littor of Ray 

thlr drpertmeat, 

That psrt OS miole 66750-2 0t that RQV~B~~ aivu stdiUtQa of Texas, petilaeaat to tbn, Queotlon b~sors UII, ma&r 
~:nornble C. W. Talb&, Psga 2 

publie hlghuayir OS this State, ud crbah ohauffour, &all apply sooh year to the State Highway Depnrtment through the County Tax Colleotor 

of the caonty in whiah he mesides SOP the 1'0 istratfan of each lsueh vehlole ovmul OF oontro f led 

by him, or Sbr a oheuSfmr's li~cm8e, Sor the 

@XlBUiQJ OX’ tum.‘ent calbn?lm moSr 01 unex~lmd 

portion thereof * * l ." 

Conetmalng maah statute, ve held ia our opinion Ho. 

O-1950 that 8 oorporatlon &ml& regieter Its equipment in the 

county OS its ryldeatuo. Our opinion Ro. O-1023 cormtrued the 

word roeidenoe to be synonymous vlth dom~oiln, The domiolle 

of a corporation ia the place OS its prlnoipal ofiioe. 

The oorporatton involvitd ln your InqulFJ, having heretofore paid lloerme Seer en the equfpmnt involved to the Tax 

Colleator of Travir County, Texa8, hew l atablimhed the ownership 

and oontrol OS suoh equipment am being in the corporation. Eming so l mtabllahed ovnersh.tpZntthn oorporation, u&the owner 

reelding ln Travis County, %x88, we bolleve that~the additions1 

Sllfn@ Sees uhould be paid in Travlll CounW, Texas, end you am 

so edvlred.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 6, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-310

Lower Tribunal Nos. F17-6712, F16-23195, F19-18684

________________

Patrick Llanos,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea R. 

Wolfson, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.