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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

SIMON JOHN JUDGE, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50533

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01309-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Simon John Judge, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month concurrent sentences imposed following his guilty-plea

convictions for importation of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952

and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Judge first contends that the district court erred by applying the incorrect

legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 

Specifically, he argues that the court erred by relying on United States v. Hurtado,

760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), which he argues was superseded by Amendment

794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role guideline. Reviewing de novo, see

United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude

that any error was harmless. Even if the Amendment and Hurtado are in conflict,

the court properly applied the Amendment; it compared Judge to his coparticipants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the guideline

and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Judge was

“substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015). Contrary to Judge’s suggestion, the court did not deny the

minor role reduction based on his essential role in the offense, or in reliance on a

single fact. 

Judge next contends that the court clearly erred in finding that he was not a

minor participant in the offense. In light of the totality of the circumstances,

including the multiple times that Judge crossed the border with marijuana seeds

before the offense, we conclude that the court did not clearly err. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 522-23. 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50533
No. 17,436.

#### Wilbert L. Thomas *v.*Travis Cook.

(281 P. [2d] 517)

Decided March 21, 1955.

Mr. Henry Blickhahn, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Moses & DeSouchet, Mr. Whitford W. Myers, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment for plaintiff affirmed without written opinion.

Mr. Justice Holland not participating.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136913 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136913 

 COA: 285066 

Ottawa CC: 07-031653-FC 

EDUARDO MEDRANO, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 6, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
#### FIRESTONE TEXTILES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Intervenor.

No. 76-1305.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 1, 1977.

Decided Dec. 28, 1977.

*500Wells T. Lovett, Lovett, Wible & Lamar, Mark R. Hutchinson, Owensboro, Ky., Thorley C. Mills, Jr., Asst. Counsel, The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Walter B. Connolly, Jr., Akron, Ohio, for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Herbert L. Segal, Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Segal, Isenberg, Sales, Stewart & Nutt, Louisville, Ky., for intervenor.

Before ENGEL and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and MARKEY, Chief Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals *.

*

 Honorable Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, sitting by designation.

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon a petition for review by the Firestone Textiles Company and a cross-petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring the Company to bargain collectively with the intervenor International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, at Firestone’s plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Following the election, held on September 25-26, 1974, which the Union won by a narrow margin, Firestone filed timely objections and asked that the election be set aside and that a new election be ordered.

With its objections the Company filed affidavits of numerous witnesses to support its claims that misconduct occurred in the course of the election which destroyed the laboratory conditions necessary for a free and fair election. Without granting a hearing on the charges, the Regional Director determined that the Company’s objections in their entirety did not raise substantial and material issues and thus did not require a hearing for resolution. The Board affirmed, Member Kennedy dissenting. In a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, the Board entered an order requiring the Company to bargain with the Union. 222 NLRB No. 191 (1976).

Upon a careful review of the record, the court is of the opinion that the objections filed by the Company were sufficiently specific and substantial and were sufficiently supported by the specific affidavits relating to alleged misconduct at the time of the elections as to have required the holding of a hearing on the issues so raised, and that the failure to grant such a hearing was consequently an abuse of discretion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that enforcement of the bargaining order is denied and the case is remanded to the Board with directions to hold a hearing to resolve the issues which are raised by the Company’s objections.

KEITH, Circuit Judge,

dissents.

He would hold that the decision to deny a hearing was properly within the discretion of the Board and that accordingly the order of the Board should be enforced.
In the Matter of the Foreclosure by ROGERS TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Substitute Trustee, of a Deed of Trust Executed by Helen J. Reeb, dated June 18, 2008 and recorded on June 24, 2008 in Book No. 04922 at Page 0108 of the Union County Public Registry.

No. COA15-927.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34757]


North American Industrial Railway, Inc.--Acquisition and 
Operation Exemption--Corn Products International, Inc., and Chicago, 
Peoria & Western Railway, Inc.

    North American Industrial Railway, Inc. (NAIR), a noncarrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire 
exclusive operating rights over approximately 17 miles of rail line 
(including sidings and interchange tracks), owned by Corn Products 
International, Inc. (CPI), and CPI's affiliate, Chicago, Peoria & 
Western Railway, Inc. (CPW),\1\ in Cook County, IL. The trackage serves 
the Argo Facility, owned by CPI, in Bedford Park, IL,\2\ and is not 
designated by milepost markings. NAIR will operate over the rail 
property pursuant to an operating agreement with CPI and CPW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CPW owns 3,000 feet of the subject trackage, which provides 
access to the connection with the Belt Railway of Chicago. The 
balance of the trackage is owned by CPI.
    \2\ The trackage also serves another shipper located there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the 
transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III 
rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    Consummation was scheduled to take place on or after September 18, 
2005 (the exemption became effective September 16, 2005, 7 days after 
filing).
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34757, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Rose-Michele Nardi, 1300 19th 
Street, NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-1609.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 23, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19486 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<PAGE>


                         SMS STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1997-A


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE



         In accordance with Section 3(a) of the Administration Agreement,  dated
as of April 1, 1997,  among SMS Student Loan Trust 1997-A, a Delaware trust (the
"Issuer"), USA Group Secondary Market Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as
administrator  (the  "Administrator"),  and Bankers  Trust  Company,  a New York
banking  corporation,  not in its  individual  capacity  but solely as Indenture
Trustee (the "Indenture Trustee"), the undersigned, in their official capacities
as Authorized  Officers,  on behalf of the Administrator,  hereby certify that a
review of the activities of the Administrator during the period from the closing
date to  September  30,  1997 and of its  performance  under the  Administration
Agreement has been made under our supervision, and to the best of our knowledge,
based on such review,  the Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under
the Administration Agreement throughout such period.

         Terms used herein and not  specifically  herein  defined shall have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Administration Agreement.

         In witness whereof,  the undersigned,  on behalf of the  Administrator,
have signed their names as of September 30, 1997.


USA GROUP SECONDARY MARKET SERVICES, INC.,
Administrator



By: /s/ Stephen W. Clinton, President
Stephen W. Clinton, President



By:/s/ Cheryl E. Watson
Cheryl E. Watson, Vice President



Prepared by Heidi Lange
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed September 23, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00876-CR

JOE AMOS SHAW, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1292395

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Joe Amos Shaw appeals his conviction for murder. On original 

submission, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence in the record to 

support the court’s costs of $334 reflected in the judgment. We agreed and 

modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed.

Shaw v. State, 420 S.W.3d 857, 864–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) 

vacated and remanded, No. PD-249-14; 2014 WL 4160116 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 
2

20, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in 

light of its opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a 

basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered 

at trial to prove each cost. Id. at 390. Traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record in this case contains a computer-screen printout 

of the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS) “Cost Bill 

Assessment.” In Johnson, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a JIMS report 

constitutes an appropriate bill of costs because the report itemized the accrued 

court costs, was certified by the district clerk, and was signed by a deputy clerk. 

Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. The JIMS report in this record is a compliant bill of 

costs because it contains an itemized list of costs, is certified by the district clerk, 

and is signed by a deputy district clerk. See id. at 392–93; Perez v. State, No. 14-

12-00893-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication). The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared 

until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill 

of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not 

be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after 

a criminal trial.”).

The trial court assessed $334 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the JIMS report is $334. There being no challenge to any specific 

cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports $334 of 
3

the costs assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396.

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6023

STEVEN REYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The Attorney General of

the State of Maryland; WILLIAM L. SMITH,

Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA97-278-JFM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann

Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Reyes v. Curran, No. CA-97-278-JFM (D. Md.

Dec. 30, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
STATE v. Andwele Willie EAVES

388P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2017

*43Sterling Rozear, Attorney at Law, for Eaves, Andwele Willie.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of November 2017."
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1







PROMISSORY NOTE













Borrower:                           Oro East Mining, Inc. of 7817 Oakport Street, Suite 205, Oakland, California 94621 (the “Borrower”)










Lender:                                (the “Lender”)




 




Principal Amount:            $800,000.00




 





	
1.  

	
FOR VALUE RECEIVED.  The Borrower promises to pay to the Lender at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the principal sum of $800,000.00 USD, with interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 15.00 percent per annum, calculated yearly not in advance.













	
2.  

	
All accrued interest and principal will be repaid in full on February 1, 2015.













	
3.  

	
At any time while not in default under this Note, the Borrower may pay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note to the Lender without further bonus or penalty.













	
4.  

	
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Note, if the Borrower defaults in the performance of any obligation under this Note, then the Lender may declare the principal amount owing and interest due under this Note at that time to be immediately due and payable.













	
5.  

	
In the case of the Borrower’s default and the acceleration of the amount due by the Lender all amounts outstanding under this Note will bear interest at the rate of 18.00 percent per annum from the date of demand until paid.













	
6.  

	
If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, it is the parties’ intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated as a result.













	
7.  

	
This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California.













	
8.  

	
This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Borrower and the Lender.  The Borrower waives presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.

















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has duly affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer on this 1st day of August, 2014.


 




	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
SIGNED AND DELIVERED

	/s/ Tian Q. Chen	 
	this 1st day of August, 2014  	 
Oro East Mining, Inc.
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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Seth H. Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

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

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

 

| Date: May 2, 2019 | By:    | /S/ SETH H. MEYER

                                |
|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|              |   | Seth H. Meyer                                           |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer, and 

Chief Accounting Officer |
# C_2010148EN.01002602.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)

(Case T-488/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark EGLÉFRUIT - Earlier Community word mark UGLI and earlier national figurative mark ‘UGLI Fruit - but the affliction is only skin deep’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 148/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd (George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: C. Rogers, barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza (Viator, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2007 (Case R 293/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd and Casur S.C. Andaluza.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 706 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 706

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the MA 
                   Regional Plan Stabilization Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2007

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the MA 
                   Regional Plan Stabilization Fund.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MA REGIONAL PLAN STABILIZATION FUND.

    (a) Purpose of Section.--The purpose of this section is to reduce 
the Federal budget deficit and to more efficiently use taxpayer dollars 
in health care spending.
    (b) Repeal of MA Regional Plan Stabilization Fund.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (e) of section 1858 of the 
        Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27a) is repealed.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1858(f)(1) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27a(f)(1)) is amended by striking 
        ``subject to subsection (e),''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```