alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anibal DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50391.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*613Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Aaron B. Clark, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wendy Susan Gerboth, Law Office of Wendy Gerboth, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Aníbal Diaz-Rodriguez appeals from the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Diaz-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by focusing on the need for deterrence and failing to consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Diaz-Rodriguez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the age of a prior conviction. The record indicates that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez,*567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009) (“It is unreasonable ... to treat a decades-old enhancing conviction as requiring as much deterrence as a recent conviction.”) (emphasis added).

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2114-091 Washington]


Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County Washington; Notice 
of Availability of Environmental Assessment

June 4, 2001.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant 
County's application for an amendment to temporarily waive for the 
current year the spill flow requirements applicable to its Priest 
Rapids Project, located on the Columbia River in Grant, Yakima, 
Kittitas, Douglas, Benton and Chelan Counties, Washington and has 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project occupies 
3,051.92 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management Department of Energy, Department of Army, Bureau of 
Reclamation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of the proposed amendment and alternatives developed by staff 
and concludes that approval of the staff recommended alternative would 
not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment.
    The EA is attached to a Commission order issued on June 1, 2001 for 
the above application. Copies of the EA are available for review at the 
Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The EA may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 
208-2222 for assistance).
    For further information, contact Charles Hall at (202) 219-2853.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14466 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

 

The Board of Directors

 

Ostex International, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (Nos. 333-44143, 333-41850, 333-73748) on FormS-8 of Ostex International, Inc. of our report dated January 24, 2003, withrespect to the balance sheet of Ostex International, Inc. as of December 31,2002 and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cashflows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2002annual report on Form 10-K of Ostex International, Inc.

 

Our report dated January 24, 2003 contains anexplanatory paragraph that states that Ostex International, Inc. has sufferedrecurring losses from operations and needs to raise significant additionalcapital to meet its operating and debt requirements.  These factors raise substantial doubt about Ostex International,Inc.’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that mightresult from the outcome of that uncertainty.

 

/s/KPMG LLP

 

Seattle, Washington

March 21, 2003

 

----
```

[Federal Register: September 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 48608]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07se99-37]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 3 p.m., Wednesday, September 15, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement Review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-23268 Filed 9-2-99; 10:14 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
```

[Federal Register: March 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 13587]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16mr06-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Friday, April 14, 2006.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:  Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information:  Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-2613 Filed 3-14-06; 1:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
No. 07-21-00286-CR

In re Eli D. Edwards, Relator Original Proceeding

December 7, 2021

Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 7, 2021, it is ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed that relator's petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied.

o O o

FILE COPY
| (i)         | the      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal      year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| October      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Martin      E. Shmagin                   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | MARTIN      E. SHMAGIN                            |   |
|                  |   | Chief      Financial Officer                      |   |
|                  |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
```

[Federal Register: August 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 44260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20au97-41]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, September 29, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-22156 Filed 8-18-97; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **National          Futures Association (NFA)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 12/08/2004 | FR          PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 | PDF          SIZE: | 18 KB | PDF          LINK: | /files/foia/c |
|-------|------------|--------------------|-----|--------|---|---------------------|-------|---------------------|---------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Futures          Industry Association (FIA)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 12/07/2004 | FR          PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 3 | PDF          SIZE: | 39 KB | PDF          LINK: | /files/foia/c |
|-------|------------|--------------------|-----|--------|---|---------------------|-------|---------------------|---------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

FirstPreviousNextLast
S07Y0147.

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARK ROBERT PRONK.

(640 SE2d 32)

Decided January 8, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to Respondent Mark Robert Pronk’s petition for voluntary surrender of license, which he filed in response to the State Bar’s initiation of proceedings under Bar Rule 4-106. In the petition, Pronk, who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 2000, admits that on May 19, 2006, he pled guilty in the Cobb County Superior Courts to one count of aggravated assault, a felony violation of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Pronk further admits that his felony conviction constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), the maximum penalty for which is disbarment. Pronk submits that the appropriate discipline to be imposed in this case is a voluntary surrender of his license to practice law, an act that he acknowledges is tantamount to disbarment. The State Bar has no objections to Pronk’s petition.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Pronk’s petition for voluntary surrender of his license. Accordingly, the name of Mark Robert Pronk hereby is removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Pronk is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Edward F. McDONOUGH, Jr., and Marion R. McDonough, Defendants.

No. 93-CR-162.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Sept. 20, 1993.

Gary L. Sharpe, U.S. Atty., N.D. NY, Albany, NY (Henry M. Greenberg, David R. Homer, of counsel), for U.S.

Dreyer, Boyajian & Tuttle, Albany, NY (William J. Dreyer, of counsel), for defendants.

ORDER

McAVOY, Chief Judge.

On September 1,1993, this court issued an Order in the above captioned action denying in part and reserving in part on defendants’ omnibus motion. The portion of the motion on which the court reserved decision concerned the application of New York Election Law § 17-158 to count 12 of the indictment. On this issue, the court ordered the parties to provide further briefing addressing the question of whether the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s “Broker of Record” constitutes an “appointment for any public office” within the meaning of N.Y.Eleet.L. § 17-158(3). The government *74has submitted a timely brief arguing that the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s Broker of Record constitutes appointment to a “public office” or a “public place” within the meaning of N.Y.Elec.L. § IT — ISSCS).1 The defendants have not submitted briefing on the issue and have indicated to the court that they would not be submitting same.

Upon the arguments presented in the government’s brief, the court finds that appointment of an insurance agency to the position of a municipality’s Broker of Record could constitute “nomination or appointment for a public office or place” within the meaning of New York Election Law § 17-158(3). That being the situation, the court now denies defendants’ motion to strike ¶ F.5.D of count 12 on the grounds that it fails to allege the necessary elements of New York Election Law § 17-158.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

. N.Y.Elec.L. § 17-158(3) provides:

> Any person who:

> (3) Makes, tenders or offers to procure, or cause any nomination or appointment for any public office or place, or accepts or requests any such nomination or appointment, upon the payment or contribution of any valuable consideration, or upon an understanding or promise thereof, [shall be guilty of a felony].

N.Y.Elec.L. § 17-158(3).
Exhibit 23.1 Jimmy C.H. Cheung & CoCertified Public Accountants
Registered with the Public Company(A member of Kreston International)
Accounting Oversight Board   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF 
SONGZAI INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP,
INC. We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement No, 333-132422 on Form S-8 of Songzai
International Holding Group, Inc, relating to our audit of the 10-KSBiofted financial
statements included in the Annual Report on Form 2005zandInternational Holding Group, Inc.
for the years ended December 2004. /s/Jimmy C.H. CheungJIMMY C.H. CHEUNG & CO
Certified Public Accountants Hong Kong Date: March 30, 2006   1607 Dominion Centre, 43 Queens Road East, Wanchai, Hong KongTel: (852) 25295500 Fax: (852) 28651067 Email: jchc@krestoninternational.com.hkWebsite: http://www.jimmycheungco.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Curtis WEISS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10533

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 20, 2012.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Damon Curtis Weiss appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of sto*348len mail. The district court upwardly departed to impose the statutory maximum sentence. Weiss contends that the district court erred in calculating the intended loss under the advisory guidelines. In particular, he asserts that the district court erred by using the average value of the negotiated and prepared checks in assigning a value to the blank checks that he possessed. Weiss contends that this inflated the intended loss estimate and that the district court should have used the median value of the prepared and negotiated checks, which would have provided a more reasonable estimate of the intended loss and would have lowered his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Although the Government asserts that plain error review applies, Weiss argued before the district court that averaging the checks resulted in an overestimation of the amount of the loss due to the large size of several checks. This argument was sufficient to preserve the issue of the procedural reasonableness of the sentence imposed. The district court’s method of calculating loss under the Guidelines is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Lige, 635 F.3d 668, 671 (5th*Cir. 2011). When reviewing a district court’s loss calculations, this court must determine “whether the sentencing court applied an acceptable method of calculating the amount of loss, which must bear a reasonable relation to the actual harm of the offense.” *United States v. Jones,*475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir.2007). “The district court receives wide latitude to determine the amount of loss and should make a reasonable estimate based on available information.” Id.; *see*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(C) (2010). We have previously approved the use of averages in estimating intended loss. *See United States v. Chappell,*6 F.3d 1095, 1101 (5th Cir.1993). Weiss has not shown that the district court erred in the methodology used to calculate the intended loss. *See id.*Accordingly, 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 *348published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-361-001]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 1, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 25, 2001, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of Northern Border 
Pipeline Company's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following tariff sheets to become effective May 1, 2001:

Fifth Revised Sheet Number 105
Fourth Revised Sheet Number 235B
Original Sheet Number 235C

    The purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order 
dated April 25, 2001 in Docket No. RP01-361-000 (95 FERC para. 61,109).
    Northern Border states that copies of this filing have been served 
on all parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14344 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Chaim Indig, the Chief Executive Officer of Phreesia, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Phreesia, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2019 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Phreesia, Inc. 

 
Date: September 10, 2019  By: 
/s/ Chaim Indig
   Chaim Indig   Chief Executive Officer and Director   *(Principal Executive Officer)*
I, Thomas Aliter, the Chief Financial Officer of Phreesia, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Phreesia, Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 31,2019 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Phreesia, Inc. 

 
Date: September 10, 2019  By: 
/s/ Thomas Altier
   Thomas Altier   Chief Financial Officer   *(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)***
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 17

- 00669

- CR

Michael Anthony RAMOS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR1344A

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of conviction are

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 24, 2019.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

1 Sitting by assignment.