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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

ISRRAEL MILLAN III,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 615

D.C. No.

2:20

- cr

- 00713

- ROS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver

, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024 **

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges

.

Isrrael Millan III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his jury

- trial conviction and 87

- month sentence for conspiracy, mail and wire

fraud, and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 371,

1341, 1343, and 1957. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

* 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

MAY 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 615

Millan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Millan the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

However, in light of United States v. Montoya , 82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023)

(en banc), which was decided after Millan was sentenced , we vacate th e 13

standard conditions of supervised release included in the written judgment and

remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce

any standard conditions it wishes to impose a fter giving Millan an opportunity to

object. See id. at 656. On remand, the district court is further instructed to

consider Millan’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the

district court

.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED

.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20E0025. CHERIE LONG v. DUANE TRUEX.

Appellant has filed an emergency motion for extension of time in which to file

an application for discretionary appeal of an order issued by the Superior Court of

DeKalb County on December 18, 2019. After due consideration, it is hereby ordered

that an extension shall be granted. Appellant’s discretionary application is now due

on or before January 31, 2020. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 17, 2020

01/17/2020
GATLIN v. GATLIN.

No. COA06-859.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Pasquotank (01CVD17).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Andrew Batinovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



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



|      |  |                   |  | 
|----- |  | ----------------- |  | 
|      |  |                   | 
|Date: |  | November 14, 2003 |  | 
|      |  |                   |  | 
|      |  |                   |  |
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 2033** 

VALLEY CAMP COAL COMPANY ,
Petitioner ,

v.
SHIRLEY DOBRZYNSKI, on behalf of Edward E. Dobrzynski; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR , Respondent s
.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

. ( 10

- 0429

- BLA )

Submitted : June 2 6 , 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012

Before AGEE and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Thomas E. Johnson, Anne Megan Davis, JOHNSON, JONES, SNELLING, GILBERT & DAVIS, Chicago, Illinois; M. Patricia Smi th, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jonathan P. Rolfe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Valley Camp Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits

Review Board ’ s decision and order affirming the administrative
law judge ’ s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.

§§ 901

- 945 (2006) . Our review of the record disc loses that the

Board ’ s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is
without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. Valley Camp Coal
Co. v. Dobrzynski , No. 10

- 0429

- BLA (B.R.B. July 28, 201 1) . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
STATE of North Carolina v. James MEYNARDIE.

No. 446PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2007.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 172 N.C.App. 127, 616 S.E.2d 21 (2005), affirming a judgment entered 20 May 2002 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr. in Superior Court, Beaufort County, but remanding the case for resentencing after granting defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 May 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

*531Daniel F. Read, Durham, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant entered *Alford* pleas to one charge of first-degree sexual offense and two charges of indecent liberties with a minor. The trial court consolidated all three charges into one judgment and sentenced based upon the most serious charge, the first-degree sexual offense. This offense involved B.H., the daughter of defendant's former girlfriend. The trial court sentenced defendant in the aggravated range, finding defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense. Because the record fails to include any description of the relationship existing among defendant, B.H., and B.H.'s mother at the time of the offense, it is unclear what position of trust or confidence may have existed. The matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for resentencing, where evidence of the existence of this and other factors in aggravation may be presented to the jury and factors in mitigation may be considered by the court.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

10400 Fernwood Road 
 Bethesda, MD
20817 
 May 9, 2016 
 Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Corporation 
 6649 Westwood Boulevard 
 Orlando, Florida 32821

 Attention: Mary Finnell 
  

	Re:	Letter Agreement Supplement to Section 16.2(B)(4) of the License, Services and Development Agreement effective November 19, 2011 (“License Agreement”) by and among Marriott Worldwide Corporation and
Marriott International, Inc. (together “Licensor”), and Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation (“Licensee”) 

 Dear
Mary: 
 The purpose of this letter (“Letter Agreement”) is to document and formalize a supplement to the terms of Section 16.2(B)(4) of the
License Agreement and to memorialize the terms of our agreement regarding delivery of the insurance certificates required under the License Agreement. 
 In
connection with the License Agreement, Licensor and Licensee agree as follows: 
 Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of Section 16.2(B)(4) of the
License Agreement, renewal certificates of insurance (or certified copies of such insurance policy if requested by Licensor in a particular jurisdiction) will be sent (including by electronic transmission) to Licensor on or before the inception date
of the general liability and umbrella or excess liability policies and not less than ten (10) days after the inception date of the property insurance policies. 








 Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation 

May 9, 2016 
 Page 2 of 2 

 

 If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of the understanding reflected in this correspondence,
kindly evidence your agreement by having an authorized officer of Licensee execute below and deliver a scanned copy to “nermine.demopoulos@marriott.com”. 

 

			
	Very Truly Yours,
	
	Marriott International, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John Kamnikar





			
	Printed Name:	 	John Kamnikar


 
			
	Title:	 	Director
	
	Marriott Worldwide Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Hector Mastrapa





			
	Printed Name:	 	Hector Mastrapa


 
			
	Title:	 	VP, Insurance


  

			
	Joined in and Consented to by:
	
	Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph J. Bramuchi



			
	Printed Name:	 	Joseph J. Bramuchi


			
	Title:	 	Vice President
<PAGE>


                                    Exhibit 11


                          PAULA FINANCIAL AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31
                                                            1997        1998
                                                          --------     -------
<S>                                                       <C>          <C>

Net Income                                                 $  916       $1,023 
                                                          --------     -------
                                                          --------     -------

Weighted average shares outstanding for calculating
      basic earnings per share                              1,904        6,322

Convertible preferred stock                                 1,882         -
Warrants                                                      130         -
Options                                                        36          478
                                                          --------     -------

Total shares for calculating diluted earnings
      per share                                             3,952        6,800
                                                          --------     -------
                                                          --------     -------

Basic earnings per share                                  $  0.48        $0.16
                                                          --------     -------
                                                          --------     -------

Diluted earnings per share                                $  0.23        $0.15  
                                                          --------     -------
                                                          --------     -------
</TABLE>


                                      14
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3296 

To extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to 

protect court officials off the Supreme Court Grounds and change the 

title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21 (legislative day, JULY 17), 2008 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court 

Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court 

Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE AND 

4 COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED

6 STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT

7 OFFICIALS OFF THE SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.—SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:21 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3296.IS S3296

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3296 IS

1 tion 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amend2 ed by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

3 (b) COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.— 

4 (1) OFFICE OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ADMINIS5 TRATION.—Section 133(b)(2) of title 28, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘administrative 

7 assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘Counselor’’. 

8 (2) JUDICIAL OFFICIAL.—Section 376(a) of 

9 title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ‘‘an 

11 administrative assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

12 Counselor’’; and 

13 (B) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ‘‘an 

14 administrative assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

15 Counselor’’. 

16 (3) ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF

17 JUSTICE.— 

18 (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 677 of title 28, 

19 United States Code, is amended— 

20 (i) in the section heading, by striking 

21 ‘‘Administrative Assistant’’ and in22 serting ‘‘Counselor’’; 

23 (ii) in subsection (a)— 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 3296 IS

1 (I) in the first sentence, by strik2 ing ‘‘an Administrative Assistant’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘a Counselor’’; and 

4 (II) in the second and third sen5 tences, by striking ‘‘Administrative 

6 Assistant’’ each place that term ap7 pears and inserting ‘‘Counselor’’; and 

8 (iii) in subsections (b) and (c), by 

9 striking ‘‘Administrative Assistant’’ each 

10 place that term appears and inserting 

11 ‘‘Counselor’’. 

12 (B) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of 

13 sections for chapter 45 of title 28, United 

14 States Code, is amended by striking the item 

15 relating to section 677 and inserting the fol16 lowing: 

‘‘677. Counselor to the Chief Justice.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diona Smith, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 861]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered March 17, 2004, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a superior court information with attempted robbery in the third degree and thereafter agreed to plead guilty to that charge in exchange for a promised prison term of IV2 to 3 years. Defendant also waived her right to appeal in connection with the plea and acknowledged during the allocution that she attempted to steal property at a Stewart’s shop. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement, prompting this appeal.

*1187Although defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not in and of itself preclude appellate review of the voluntariness of her plea *(see People v Conyers,*227 AD2d 793, 793 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 982 [1996]), her failure to move either to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction generally precludes review of her challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Kelly,*3 AD3d 789, 789 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 801 [2004]; *People v Kalenak,*2 AD3d 902, 902 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 629 [2004]). In any event, contrary to defendant’s assertion, we note that there is no requirement that defendant personally recite the facts underlying her crime *(see People v Pringle,*10 AD3d 802, 803 [2004]; *People v Kinch,*237 AD2d 830, 831 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 860 [1997]), particularly where, as here, defendant’s affirmative answers during County Court’s inquiry neither cast doubt on her guilt nor otherwise raised any issues regarding the voluntariness of her plea *(see People v Lopez, supra*at 666; *People v Kelly, supra*at 789; *People v Kalenak, supra*at 902; *People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]).

Defendant’s additional argument that defense counsel’s performance impacted the voluntariness of her plea finds no support in the record. Indeed, the record reflects that defendant was provided meaningful representation as evidenced by the favorable plea bargain that defendant received *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *People v Wright,*295 AD2d 806, 807 [2002]). Finding no basis for determining that the plea was anything but knowing, voluntary and intelligent, we decline to disturb it *(see People v Donaldson,*1 AD3d 800, 800-801 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 739 [2004]). Defendant’s remaining argument that her sentence was harsh and excessive is precluded by her comprehensive waiver of her right to appeal and we find no basis on this record to conclude that said waiver should not be honored *(see People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]).

Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
PROGRESS ENERGY v. STRICKLAND.

No. 118A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 15, 2007.

Norman W. Shearin, Jr., Kitty Hawk, for Strickland.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., John C. Cooke, Raleigh, Elizabeth T. Smith, Garris Neil Yarborough, Fayetteville, for Progress Energy.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of May 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Strickland) shall have up to and including the 5th day of June 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of May 2007."
Ozie L. HALL v. Steven I. COHEN (d/b/a: Homestead Mobile Home Park).

No. 486P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Ozie L. Hall, Pro Se, for Hall.

Larry C. Economos, Greenville, for Cohen.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of October 2007 by Plaintiff 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 11th day of October 2007."

HUDSON, J., recused.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of
T-NETIX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, Henry G. Schopfer III, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                           
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with
    the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and
    Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     
|
| | 2. The information contained in this
    Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
    financial condition and results of operation of T-NETIX, Inc.



| |     |                          
| | --- | -------------------------
| | By: | /s/ HENRY G. SCHOPFER III

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Henry G. Schopfer III  
| | Chief Financial Officer

August 7, 2003
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 692/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 692/2013 of 19 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 692/2013                     

# of 19 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 19 July 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.