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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

WAYNE TAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-10308 

D.C. No. 3:20-cr-08097-SMB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Wayne Tan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated 

sexual abuse of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2241(c), and 

2246(2)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Tan’s counsel 

* 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 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-10308 

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 Tan the opportunity to file a pro 

se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been 

filed. 

Tan waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent 

review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses 

no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 

F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal except as to 

supervised release special conditions 2, 5, and 9. Although the government elected 

not to file an answering brief, it filed a letter stating that it would not “oppose 

vacatur and remand of Special Conditions #2 and #5 . . . to permit the district court 

to impose the District of Arizona’s post-Nishida conditions.” In view of this 

position, we vacate special conditions 2 and 5 and remand for the district court to 

modify these conditions in a manner consistent with United States v. Nishida, 53 

F.4th 1144, 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2022). We also vacate and remand special condition 

9 so the district court may reevaluate this condition in light of Nishida. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with 

instructions.
# C_2010179EN.01003102.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — KME Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-25/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Ability to pay - Cooperation)

(2010/C 179/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabrück, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf, M. Piergiovanni, lawyers, and R. Elderkin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, S. Noë and C. Thomas, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2(g), (h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) and, second, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy Spa to bear their own costs and to pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy Spa to bear their own costs and to pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear 50 % of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear 50 % of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         400,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,789,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,953,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,668,000
<PP&E>                                       4,490,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,777,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,831,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    41,322,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (32,809,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,777,000
<SALES>                                     32,196,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,196,000
<CGS>                                       17,501,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,501,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (243,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,502,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,554,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,556,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,556,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,997

EX PARTE STEPHEN K. GILBERT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 05-00944-CRF-272-A IN THE 272 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM BRAZOS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Gilbert v. State , No. 10-06-00232-CR (Tex. App. – Waco, November 14, 2007). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of

his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. We remanded this application to the trial court
2

for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for

discretionary appeal pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956

S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity

to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Tenth Court of Appeals

in Cause No. 10-06-00232-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 05-00944-CRF-272-A from

the 272nd Judicial District Court of Brazos County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary

review with the Tenth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate

issues.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do not publish
PARAMOUNT RX, INC. v. Robert E. DUGGAN and Agelity, Inc.

No. 376A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2016.

Christopher Jones, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

Leslie C. Packer, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

James Michael Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

Amanda G. Ray, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

*746The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 31st of March 2016 by Plaintiff to Lift Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of April 2016."
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2005, of CKE
Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew F. Puzder, Chief Executive 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:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 780(d)); and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of
the date set forth opposite his signature below. Date: April 21, 2005
    /s/ Andrew F. PuzderAndrew F. PuzderChief Executive Officer
State of North Carolina, v. Anthony Ray Solomon, Defendant.

No. COA16-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART; NO PLAIN ERROR IN PART.
# CE2004078EN.01002401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/24

---

(2004/C 78 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0895/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Agro-business Bank of Georgia

Subject:

Does the Commission intend to re-open the tendering process for the Agro-business Bank in Georgia?

If, in the light of new circumstances, this is the case, when is the process likely to be resumed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

(21 May 2003)

The tendering process for the project ‘Strengthening the capacity of the Agro Business Bank of Georgia’ was completed in 2002. However, due to the kidnapping of a former project's Team Leader, Mr. Shaw, the Commission decided to keep this and other Georgian projects on hold. Once the situation was unblocked and following a careful analysis of the most appropriate options for the future of the Agro Business Bank, it was recently decided to sign the contract with the winner of last year's tender. The implementation of the project has just started.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John G.
Corp, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ JOHN G. CORP           
|John G. Corp               
|Principal Executive Officer
|September 26, 2013         

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 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Companys Form 10-K solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3632 

To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Efficiency Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by 

8 and with the advice and consent of the Senate— 

9 (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the second cir10 cuit court of appeals; and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3632 IH

1 (2) 1 additional circuit judge for the eleventh 

2 circuit court of appeals. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 44(a) of 

4 title 28, United States Code, is amended in the table— 

5 (1) in the item relating to the District of Co6 lumbia circuit court of appeals, by striking ‘‘11’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘8’’; 

8 (2) in the item relating to the second circuit 

9 court of appeals, by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘14’’; and 

11 (3) in the item relating to the eleventh circuit 

12 court of appeals, by striking ‘‘12’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘13’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# CE2004088EN.01037301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/373

---

(2004/C 88 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Child asthma and allergic diseases

Subject:

A recent World Health Organisation Report has indicated that the number of European cases of child asthma and allergic diseases doubled between the 1970s and 1990s.

Does the Commission have its own analysis of the causes and does it include bad air quality and the impact of synthetic chemicals in water and food?

What is the Commission's view on why in at least two EU countries – the UK and Italy – child asthma and allergic diseases are now ‘easing’, according to the WHO?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

(19 June 2003)

Under the Action Programme on pollution-related diseases (1) in the context of the framework for action in the field of Public Health (1999/2001), the Commission funded several projects on asthma and respiratory allergies prevention. The list and the summary of these projects can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health).

1

According to numerous scientific studies, the origin of asthma and allergic diseases is multi-factorial and therefore highly difficult to tackle.

The Commission does not have any particular information on a decrease of the incidence of asthma and allergies in Italy and United Kingdom.

The reduction of the number of people affected by such diseases is one of the priorities of the new Public Health Programme adopted in 23 September 2002 (2). In addition, asthma and respiratory allergies prevention is also considered as a priority in the Commission Communication ‘A European Environment and Health Strategy’ adopted on 11 June 2003, which can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/press room/presspacks/health/pp health en.htm).

2

---

(1)  Decision No 1296/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (1999 to 2001), OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.

1

(2)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) – Commission Statements, OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

2

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,995

EX PARTE MARCOS EUGENIO GARCIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 732598-A IN THE 176 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of delivery of a

controlled substance and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Garcia v. State, No. 14-99-00629-CR (Tex. App. – Houston [14 Dist.], th

May 17, 2001). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of
his right to petition for discretionary review pro se.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for

discretionary appeal pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956

S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity

to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Fourteenth Court of

Appeals in Cause No. 14-99-00629-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 732598 from the

176th Judicial District Court of Harris County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary

review with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s

mandate issues.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                                    <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-04-1999              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-03-1999              JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                         107                      107
<SECURITIES>                                     0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,049                   11,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0                        0
<INVENTORY>                                 39,233                   39,233
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,213                   54,213
<PP&E>                                      26,065                   26,065
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,041                    8,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,143                   74,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,868                   40,868
<BONDS>                                          0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                      0                        0
<COMMON>                                     9,033                    9,033
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,564                   13,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,143                   74,143
<SALES>                                     53,794                  110,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,794                  110,616
<CGS>                                       49,651                  100,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,651                  100,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             334                      644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (248)                     (69)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (99)                     (28)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (149)                     (41)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0                        0
<CHANGES>                                        0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (149)                     (41)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.03)                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.03)                   (0.01)


</TABLE>