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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

ERNESTO TRASLAVINA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 10198

D.C. No.

2:87

- cr

- 00166

- APG

- LRL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Erne sto Traslavina appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his

motion to discharge his fine and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Traslavina contends that the district court should have discharged his fine

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 10198

because it was a condition of supervision and his supervised release term had

expired, and because the government’s deadline to collect the payment ha d

elapsed. However, Traslavina’s criminal judgment shows that the fine was

imposed as an independent sanction rather than a condition of supervision.

Additionally, the government’s collection efforts were authorized under the

extended deadline provided by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

, see 18

U.S.C. § 3613(b) , which is applicable to judgments , like Traslavina’s, that were

entered before the statute’s enactment

. See United States v. Blackwell

, 852 F.3d

1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017)

. Traslavina’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive.

Traslavina’s challenges to the district court’s order denying reconsideration

are also unavailing. T he court did not abuse its discretion by denying

reconsideration because Traslavina simply repeated his arguments for termination

of the fine and added a n unrelated cla im requesting the return of property seized

over 30 years ago

. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &

Co.

, 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) ( stating standard of review and explaining

that a r econsideration motion may not be used to raise new arguments )

.

We do not consider Traslavina’s remaining arguments because they were not

distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d

983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Philip M. KLEINSMITH, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-1169.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
Paul VIRIYAPANTHU, petitioner, v. Thomas E. BRANDON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

No. 17-5019.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JUAN J. ORTIZ, SR.

,

Plaintiff Below

Appellant,

v.

PAUL WARFIELD, et al.

,

Defendants Below

Appellee s

. §

§ No

. 435, 2016

§

§

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C .A. No. N1 6A

- 05

- 001

§

§

Submitted: January 27, 2017

Decided: March 2 , 201 7

Before HOLLAND

, VA LIHURA

, and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 2 nd day of March 201 7

, upon consideration of the parties’ brief and the

record below, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed on

the basis of the Superior Court’s well

- reasoned decision dated July 28, 2016

. As a

matter of law, t he Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s

notice of appeal, which was filed on June 1, 2016, from a Court of Common Pleas’

order entered on April 12, 2016 was untimely.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, et al.

No. 15-9580.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2006147EN.01004001.xml

| 1.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/40

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 26/2006

of 10 March 2006

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 144/2005 of 2 December 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 144/2005 of 2 December 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005 amending Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council for the purpose of establishing the maximum concentration values for certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005 amending Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council for the purpose of establishing the maximum concentration values for certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 12q (Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32005 D 0618: Commission Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005 (OJ L 214, 19.8.2005, p. 65).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32005 D 0618: Commission Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005 (OJ L 214, 19.8.2005, p. 65).’

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2005/618/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 11 March 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 53, 23.2.2006, p. 40.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 214, 19.8.2005, p. 65.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Exhibit 12.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Peter Yip, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 20-F of chinadotcom corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrantand have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 annual report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 recentfiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
Date: May 7, 2004                       /s/ Peter Yip   Peter Yip   Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1

 

GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES INCOME TRUST

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Government Properties Income Trust, or the Company, for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,000 fees are payable if more than one board and board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $15,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.
Michael J. SZYMANSKI, petitioner, v. WAILEA RESORT COMPANY, LTD., et al.

No. 16-1511.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i denied.
II-00824

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dominic Tancredi <dominic.woodshed@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:05 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Dominic Tancredi

5745 Andover

Garfield Heights, OH 44125
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552(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:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, MBRS Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 25, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         1 pm to 3 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIGMS, Office of Scientific Review, Natcher Building, Room 1AS-13, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Helen R. Sunshine, Chief, Office of Scientific Review, NIGMS, Natcher Building, Room 1AS-13, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2881.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biiomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 21, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16332 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
|
|

|                                                                                                                                                    |  |  | Exhibit
      32.1
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | ------------------
|                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |                   
|CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
        1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
        TOSECTION 906 OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
  with the Annual Report of Pacific Magtron International Corp. (the Company)
  on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Theodore
  S. Li, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Theodore S.
  Li

Theodore S. LiChief Executive Officer
  andChief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2004

A signed original
  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
  within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
  906, has been provided to Pacific Magtron International Corp. and will be retained
  by Pacific Magtron International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

|
|
|
# C_2010113EN.01001801.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/18

---

Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)

(Case C-54/10 P)

2010/C 113/27

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.

1

The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# L_2005268EN.01002501.xml

| 13.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/25

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 89/2005

of 10 June 2005

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2002 of 27 September 2002 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 135/2002 of 27 September 2002 (1).

| (2) | It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Council Decision 2005/12/EC of 20 December 2004 amending Decision 1999/847/EC as regards the extension of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Council Decision 2005/12/EC of 20 December 2004 amending Decision 1999/847/EC as regards the extension of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2).

| (3) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place with effect from 1 January 2005, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place with effect from 1 January 2005,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in the third indent (Council Decision 1999/847/EC) of Article 10(8)(b) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32005 D 0012: Council Decision 2005/12/EC of 20 December 2004 amending Decision 1999/847/EC as regards the extension of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection (OJ L 6, 8.1.2005, p. 7).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32005 D 0012: Council Decision 2005/12/EC of 20 December 2004 amending Decision 1999/847/EC as regards the extension of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection (OJ L 6, 8.1.2005, p. 7).’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

It shall apply from 1 January 2005.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 June 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 336, 12.12.2002, p. 36.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 6, 8.1.2005, p. 7.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---