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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

ELIAS BACA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50164 

D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00209-GW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Elias Baca appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a 

special condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea 

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

 

* 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

AUG 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50164 

We vacate and remand to the district court to correct the judgment.

Baca contends that the written judgment is in conflict with the court’s oral 

pronouncement of special condition of supervised release number three. The 

government concedes, and we agree, that special condition number three in the 

written judgment contains a restriction that was not included in the district court’s 

oral pronouncement of sentence, namely the restriction that Baca “abstain from 

using alcohol.” Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district 

court to conform the judgment with the oral pronouncement by striking the 

prohibition on Baca’s use of alcohol from special condition of supervised release 

number three.1 See United States v. Jones, 696 F.3d 932, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(vacating judgment and remanding for the district court to strike a residency 

restriction that it did not include in its oral pronouncement of sentence); see also 

United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen an oral 

sentence is unambiguous, it controls over a written sentence that differs from it.”).

VACATED and REMANDED.

 

1 Special condition of supervised release number three also differs in other ways 

from the oral pronouncement. However, Baca does not challenge these variances, 

and we do not reach them here.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Lee WHITE

No. 396PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Mr. John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of November 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of November 2017 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
Joseph P. STRAZZANTI, Plaintiff, v. Dana Anthony DOLCE, Defendant.

No. COA17-1217

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Christopher Dean YATER, Defendant.

No. COA17-390

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

NO ERROR.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4398 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4398

      To prohibit the National Telecommunications and Information 
 Administration from relinquishing responsibility with respect to the 
             Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2014

  Mr. Duffy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To prohibit the National Telecommunications and Information 
 Administration from relinquishing responsibility with respect to the 
             Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

    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 ``Global Internet Freedom Act of 
2014'' or the ``GIF Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. NTIA PROHIBITED FROM RELINQUISHING RESPONSIBILITY FOR IANA 
              FUNCTIONS.

    The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
Information may not relinquish the responsibility of the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration with respect to the 
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions, including the following:
            (1) Coordination of the assignment of technical Internet 
        protocol parameters.
            (2) Performance of administrative functions associated with 
        Internet domain name system root zone management.
            (3) Allocation of Internet numbering resources.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

CALVIN BRIDGES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 707

[ May 24, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2012

- CF

- 013019

- AXXX

- MB

.
Calvin Bridges, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C.J., G ROSS and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40202

Summary Calendar

 

HARRIS GENE HALE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON, ETC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON, Officer, Longview Police Department

Individually and in official capacity; 

RILEY TAYLOR, Detective, Longview Police Department 

Individually and in official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:98-CV-343

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

September 30, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harris Gene Hale, TDJC #322484, appeals the dismissal with

prejudice of his civil rights suit alleging false arrest and

malicious prosecution filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hale

argues that the district court erred in dismissing his false 
No. 99-40202

-2-

arrest claim because he was arrested without a warrant and the

grand jury indictment did not act as an independent intermediary

breaking the causal chain and insulating the defendants from

liability. Hale also argues that his malicious prosecution claim

should not have been dismissed because the defendants acted

without probable cause. Hale has not briefed the issues of

whether the district court properly dismissed the prosecutor and

judge or whether the district court properly dismissed his

unreasonable search claim, and those claims are deemed waived. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The district court properly dismissed Hale’s false arrest

claim because the decision of the grand jury to indict him broke

the chain of causation. See Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453, 456

(5th Cir. 1994). 

The district court erred in dismissing Hale’s malicious

prosecution claim against Detective Riley Taylor and Officer

Christopher Clayton because Hale sufficiently alleged his claim.

See Taylor, 36 F.3d at 455. The district court’s reliance on the

grand jury indictment alone was insufficient to insulate state

actors from an action for malicious prosecution. See Hand v.

Gary, 838 F.2d 1420, 1426 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of the action is

AFFIRMED, with the exception that the district court’s dismissal

of the malicious prosecution claim against Taylor and Clayton is

VACATED, and the case is REMANDED.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED.
#### Brent Arrowitz, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Linda Arrowitz, Respondent, v Rand Arrowitz, Defendant, and Northern Westchester Hospital, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 115]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Northern Westchester Hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered February 3, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against it and denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries which he allegedly sustained when a vehicle operated by an employee of the appellant, Northern Westchester Hospital, crossed over onto the wrong side of the road and struck the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the appellant’s employee *(see, Montero v Muller,*269 AD2d 576; *Studnick v Selesnick,*265 AD2d 321; *Cummins v Rose,*185 AD2d 839; *Morowitz v Naughton,*150 AD2d 536; *Tomaselli v Goldstein,*104 AD2d 872). The burden then shifted to the appellant to demonstrate by admissible proof the existence of an exculpatory explanation for the collision *(see, Selimanjin v New York City Hous. Auth.,*275 AD2d 408; *Studnick v Selesnick,*supra;*Viegas v Esposito,*135 AD2d 708). The appellant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating by admissible proof the existence of a nonnegligent explanation for the head-on collision, or that its employee was not negligent in the happening of this accident as a matter of law. S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”),the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   |   | /s/ Paul Block          |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Paul Block              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | November 13, 2007       |

 

 

34

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Deshaun MCMANNUS

No. COA 17-900

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57923-57924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19969]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Public Meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

[[Page 57924]]


ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises all interested persons of a public meeting 
of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, and will 
begin at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Washington, DC area. The 
venue has not been identified to date. Venue information will be posted 
on the Panel's Web site at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov as soon as it 
is available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Panel staff at (202) 927-2TAX 
(927-2829) (not a toll-free call) or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#452c2b232a0531243d3720232a372835242b20296b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3950575f56794d58414b5c5f564b544958575c55175e564f">[email protected]</span></a> 
(please do not send comments to this box). Additional information is 
available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose: The October 18 meeting is the twelfth meeting of the 
Advisory Panel. Due to exceptional circumstances concerning scheduling, 
this Notice is being published at this time. At this meeting, the Panel 
will continue to discuss issues associated with reform of the tax code.
    Comments: Interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; 
however, no public comments will be heard at the meeting. Any written 
comments with respect to this meeting may be mailed to The President's 
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 1440 New York Avenue NW., Suite 
2100, Washington, DC 20220. All written comments will be made available 
to the public.
    Records: Records are being kept of Advisory Panel proceedings and 
will be available at the Internal Revenue Service's FOIA Reading Room 
at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1621, Washington, DC 20024. The 
Reading Room is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday except holidays. The public entrance to the reading room 
is on Pennsylvania Avenue between 10th and 12th streets. The phone 
number is (202) 622-5164 (not a toll-free number). Advisory Panel 
documents, including meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, will 
also be available on http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

    Dated: September 30, 2005.
Mark S. Kaizen,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19969 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19934]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) 
<greek-i>1203.
    Dates & Times:

October 18, 2005; 7:45 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. (open 7:45 - 12:30, 1:30 - 
5).
October 19, 2005; 8 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. (closed).
    Place: University of Puerto Rico at Humacao, Humacao, Puerto 
Rico.
    Type of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Maija M. Kukla, Program Director, Materials 
Research Science and Engineering Centers, Division of Materials 
Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 292-4940.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning progress of the Partnership for Research and Education in 
Materials.
    Agenda:

October 18, 2005--Open for Directors overview of the Partnership for 
Research and Education in Materials.
October 18 & 19, 2005--Closed to review and evaluate progress of the 
Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19934 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of WLG Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew Jillings, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David L. Koontz, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge that:





1. The
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.





Date: May
14, 2010




By:
            /s/
      Andrew Jillings
            
            By:
            /s/
      David KoontzName:
      Andrew Jillings
            
            
            Name:
      David KoontzTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
            
            
            Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and
              Accounting
      Officer)
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Michael G. PAUL, Respondent.

No. 785 Disciplinary Docket 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 20, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2003, on certification by the Disciplinary Board that the respondent, MICHAEL G. PAUL, who was suspended by Order of this Court dated January 28, 2003, for a period of three months, has filed a verified statement showing compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Order of Suspension and Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and there being no other outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, MICHAEL G. PAUL, is hereby reinstated to active status, effective immediately.
#### David Ockert, Respondent, v Karen Ockert, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 840]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 2, 1999, which, *inter alia,*dissolved the parties’ marriage by reason of the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant, fixed plaintiff’s child support obligation, and adjudged the remaining proceeds from plaintiff’s personal injury action to be plaintiff’s separate property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to establish that the IAS Court erred in determining which assets were subject to equitable distribution. Moreover, the court correctly calculated plaintiff’s child support obligation based on the income received by him from his business. There is no basis to conclude that plaintiff improperly limited his income by manipulating his business’s expenses. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4562 

AN ACT 

To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau 

of Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District 

in the State of Nebraska. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4562 EH

1 SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 213 of 

3 the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), 

4 any landowner within the Northport Irrigation District in 

5 the State of Nebraska (referred to in this section as the 

6 ‘‘District’’) may repay, at any time, the construction costs 

7 of project facilities allocated to the landowner’s land with8 in the District. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY OF FULL-COST PRICING LIMITA10 TIONS.—On discharge, in full, of the obligation for repay11 ment of all construction costs described in subsection (a) 

12 that are allocated to all land the landowner owns in the 

13 District in question, the parcels of land shall not be sub14 ject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations 

15 under Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 

16 32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to 

17 and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.), in18 cluding the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 U.S.C. 

19 390aa et seq.). 

20 (c) CERTIFICATION.—On request of a landowner that 

21 has repaid, in full, the construction costs described in sub22 section (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall provide to 

23 the landowner a certificate described in section 213(b)(1) 

24 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 

25 390mm(b)(1)). 

26 (d) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section— 
3 

•HR 4562 EH

1 (1) modifies any contractual rights under, or 

2 amends or reopens, the reclamation contract between 

3 the District and the United States; or 

4 (2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relation5 ships between the District and landowners in the 

6 District under Nebraska State law. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4562 

AN ACT 

To authorize early repayment of obligations to the 

rigation District in the State of Nebraska. Bureau of Reclamation within the Northport Ir-