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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

ABRAHAM FERREL GUTIERREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 12-50351

 12-50436

D.C. Nos. 2:03-cr-00460-RSWL

 2:03-cr-00460-ODW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated appeals, Abraham Ferrel Gutierrez appeals from the

district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of

sentence and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United

FILED

MAR 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. TapiaMarquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Preliminarily, we reject the government’s contention that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155-58

(9th Cir. 2013).

The district court granted Gutierrez’s section 3582(c)(2) motion, reducing

his sentence from 200 to 160 months. Gutierrez contends that the district court

procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately why his post-sentencing

conduct was not sufficient to support a sentence reduction to 151 months. This

contention is unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court considered

Gutierrez’s post-sentencing rehabilitation and adequately explained the 160-month

sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Gutierrez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the district court gave insufficient weight to his post-sentencing conduct

and excessive weight to the drug quantity relied on at the original sentencing. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gutierrez’s sentence. See

Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1157. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the

section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See

id. at 1159-60; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.

2 12-50351 & 12-50436
2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the

discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying Gutierrez’s motion for reconsideration. See Tapia-Marquez,

361 F.3d at 537.

AFFIRMED. 

3 12-50351 & 12-50436
EXHIBIT 31

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Vincent J. Young, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Young Broadcasting Inc. (the "Registrant");

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



/s/ VINCENT J. YOUNG Vincent J. Young Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 17, 2008


---



I,
James A. Morgan, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Young Broadcasting Inc. (the "Registrant");

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



/s/ JAMES A. MORGAN James A. Morgan Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 17, 2008


---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5791 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5791

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the effective date of 
 active duty of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
receiving an alert order anticipating a call or order to active duty in 
   support of a contingency operation for purposes of entitlement to 
 medical and dental care as members of the Armed Forces on active duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2008

 Ms. Shea-Porter (for herself and Mr. Latham) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the effective date of 
 active duty of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
receiving an alert order anticipating a call or order to active duty in 
   support of a contingency operation for purposes of entitlement to 
 medical and dental care as members of the Armed Forces on active duty.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard and Reserve Readiness 
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVE DUTY FOR PURPOSES OF ENTITLEMENT TO 
              ACTIVE DUTY HEALTH CARE OF MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE 
              COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES RECEIVING ALERT ORDER 
              ANTICIPATING A CALL OR ORDER TO ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF 
              A CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

    Subsection (d) of section 1074 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(d)(1) For purposes of this chapter, a member of a reserve 
component of the armed forces shall be treated as a member of the armed 
forces on active duty as follows:
            ``(A) On the date of the issuance of the alert order for 
        the member's unit in anticipation of the mobilization of the 
        unit for service for a period of more than 30 days in support 
        of a contingency operation.
            ``(B) On the date of the issuance of the order providing 
        for the assignment or attachment of the member to a unit 
        subject to an alert order described in paragraph (1).
    ``(2) If the alert order for a member's unit (or the unit to which 
the member is assigned or attached) is rescinded, the member shall 
cease to be treated on active duty for purposes of this chapter as of 
the date of the issuance of the order rescinding such alert order.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31 (b)
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
    November 10, 2008/s/ John A. MarazzaChief Financial Officer 41
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1049/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1049/2013 of 25 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international            waters of I, II and XIV by vessels flying the flag of United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1049/2013                     

# of 25 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in EU and international waters of I, II and XIV by vessels flying the flag                        of United Kingdom                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Kennedy McMILLAN.

No. 133P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Thomas K. McMillan, Pro Se.

Floyd M. Lewis, Raleigh, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013 of 7 May 2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined            Nomenclature (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013                     

# of 7 May 2013

# concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/368 of 4 March 2019 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013 concerning                                 the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
##### 



Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, I,
Thomas E. Legro, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of
Selkirk Funding Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation.

|                |  |                                                                                                          
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 13, 2003 |  | /s/ THOMAS E. LEGRO                                                                                      
|                |  |                                                                                                          
|                |  | Thomas E. Legro
Vice President, Controller and
Chief Accounting Officer
Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Selkirk Cogen Funding Corporation and will be retained by Selkirk
Cogen Funding Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 15.1





Club  Corporation  International
Dallas,  Texas

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

Re:    Registration  Statement  Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 and 333-57107

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of  the  use  therein of our report dated July 23, 1998, except as to
Note  2  which  is  as  of  October  13,  1998, related to our review of interim
financial  information.

Pursuant  to  Rule  436(c)  under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of  sections  7  and  11  of  the  Act.




                                   KPMG  Peat  Marwick  LLP



Dallas,  Texas
October  22,  1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JEFFREY SCOTT TAYLOR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-1350 

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-01210-JLK and 

1:13-CR-00400-JLK-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Defendant Jeffrey Taylor filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 collaterally 

attacking his sentence. He argued that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range 

had relied on the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) and that the residual clause is 

unconstitutionally vague because it uses essentially the same language as the language in 

the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b), which was held to be 

unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The district 

court denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealability. We AFFIRM the 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 13, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

decision below. In Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (S.Ct. Mar. 

6, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional-vagueness holding in Johnson

does not apply to the residual clause in the sentencing guidelines. The other issues raised 

by the parties are moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge
Connie Ginn BROWN, Ralph Leroy Ginn, individually and as joint executrix/executor of the Estate of Henry Lee Ginn, and the Estate of Henry Lee Ginn v. Louise Dixon GINN.

No. 107P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Richard J. Archie, Kinston, for Louise Ginn.

Larry C. Economos, Greenville, for Connie Brown, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of February 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,709
<SECURITIES>                                     7,061
<RECEIVABLES>                                      164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,315
<PP&E>                                          16,199
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,742
<BONDS>                                          7,329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     44,993
<COMMON>                                         1,035
<OTHER-SE>                                     (27,711)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,388
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   676
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (24,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (24,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.26)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification 
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Roger G. Wilson, Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|November 9, 2004 | /s/ Roger G. Wilson                                            
|---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                 | Roger G. Wilson
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer andSecretary
STATE v. EZEKIEL

No. COA06-305

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS23118, 04CRS73752).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.