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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. CYRUS ANDREW SULLIVAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-30207 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00064-HZ-1
ORDER *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2014 ** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. On April 15, 2013 and pursuant to a signed plea agreement, Cyrus Sullivan knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to making a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) through use of electronic communications, including 

# FILED
DEC 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).the Internet. We have examined the terms of Sullivan’s waiver of appeal and find that its scope is unambiguous and precludes anappeal of the challenged terms of supervised release: Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal from any aspect of the conviction and sentence on any grounds , except for a claim that the sentence imposed ex ceeds the statutory maximum penalty. Should defendant seek an appeal, despite this waiver, the USAO may take any position on any issue on app eal. Defendant also waives the right to file any collateral att ack, including a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging any aspect of the conviction or sentence on any grounds, except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, and except as provided in Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Plea Agreement ¶ 12 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Joyce , 357 F.3d 921, 923–25 (9th Cir. 2004) (plea agreement waiverof “any aspect of the sentence imposed in this case” included waiver of right to appeal special conditions of supervised release). The only possible exception that may apply to Sullivan’s waiver of appeal is if the sentence is illegal because it “exceeds th e permissible statutory penalty for the crime or violates the Constitution.” United States v. Bibler , 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007). We have examined special cond itions of supervised release 7 and 8 and conclude that they are not illegal. See United States v. Goddard , 537 F.3d 1087, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rearden , 349 F.3d 608, 620–21 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the use of a computer and the Internet was “essential to the
2commission of” Sullivan’s crime, United States v. Antelope , 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005), and because the conditions are “not absolute,” but permit access subsequent to approval by Probation, the c onditions “do[] not plainly involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary,” Rearden , 349 F.3d at 621. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). DISMISSED.

3
STATE v. Eric Wilson TAYLOR

3P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2019

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Taylor, Eric Wilson.

Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of January 2019."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 8, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Motion Picture Laboratories, Inc. (“MovieLabs”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

                    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Paramount Pictures Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Walt Disney Pictures & Television, Burbank, CA; Warner Bros.                           ( print page 58473)                        Entertainment Inc., Burbank, CA; Universal City Studies LLLP, Universal City, CA; and Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Culver City, CA. The general area of MovieLabs' planned activity is identifying, researching, developing, evaluating, owning and disseminating technology (i) relevant to motion picture production and distribution and (ii) that lawfully prevents, deters or detects unauthorized and illegal copying and/or distribution of copyrighted audiovisual works.                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-20131 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350),John P. Longenecker, Chief Executive Officer of Favrille, Inc. (the “Company”),and Tamara A. Seymour, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

 

**1.**            The Company’s Quarterly Report  on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “QuarterlyReport”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d)of the Exchange Act, and

 

**2.**            The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their handshereto as of the 14th day of November, 2007.
|   | /s/ John P. Longenecker    |   | /s/ Tamara A. Seymour   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | John P. Longenecker, Ph.D. |   | Tamara A. Seymour       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of Favrille, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

 

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00511-CR

Ex parte Jorge Ulises Apoderado Cadena

On Appeal from the

County Court of Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14533CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 2, 2024
#### Irwin Stein, Respondent, v State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut National Association et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[719 NYS2d 572]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered May 6, *4281999, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Plaintiff slipped and fell on snow and ice on a sidewalk between 390 Greenwich Street and 250 West Street in Manhattan, on January 17, 1994, at about 3:15 p.m., while a snowstorm was in progress. Defendant State Street owns 390 Greenwich Street and defendant Smith Barney is its primary tenant. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that there had been no snow on the ground when he entered the premises that morning, but that when he left, a winter storm was in progress. He claims that no sand or salt was evident on the icy surface, and that he slipped carrying a bag of tools en route to the other side of the street. Defendants submitted documentation of weather for the day evidencing the snowy conditions. Defendants disclaimed notice of the icy condition, arguing also that they had no duty to clear the sidewalk while the storm was in progress. It is uncontested that defendants had not undertaken any snow removal prior to the accident. It is well established that a property owner has no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises *(Quiles v 200*W. *94th St. Corp.,*262 AD2d 169; *cf., Jimenez v Cummings,*226 AD2d 112), unless the owner or tenant has undertaken snow removal in a manner that makes the condition more dangerous *(Bautista v City of New York,*267 AD2d 265), a factor not present herein. Under these circumstances, summary judgment should have been granted to these defendants. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. 
Moniteau County, No. 03-4094-CV-C-SOW was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on October 3, 2005.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Moniteau County, Missouri and the Commissioners 
of Moniteau County, pursuant to Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water 
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief from the 
defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants 
without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent 
Decree resolves these allegations by enjoining Moniteau County from 
further violations, requiring it to take certain affirmative measures 
to avoid future violations, requiring restoration and mitigation with 
regard to an impacted area, and requiring an environmental project.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Charles M. 
Thomas, Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District 
of Missouri, 400 East 9th Street, Room 5510, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106 and refer to United States v. Moniteau County.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, 
United States Courthouse, 400 East 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 
64016 or the Clerk's Office, 310 U.S. Courthouse, 131 W. High Street, 
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. In addition, the proposed Consent 
Decree may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.

Mary Edgar,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 05-20540 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
<PAGE>



                              AMENDMENT NO.6 TO THE
                              ----------------------
                     AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
                     ---------------------------------------

THIS AMENDMENT, by and between NKK CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation, having
its main office at 1-1-2, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan (herein called
"NKK") and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation having its
principal office at 4100 Edison Lakes Parkway, Mishawaka, IN 46545-3440, U.S.A.
(herein called "NSC"), is made effective December 10, 2001.

                                   WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, NKK and NSC entered into an Agreement for the Transfer of Employees
dated as of May 1, 1995 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which certain employees
have been transferred from NKK to NSC for the purpose of providing technical
assistance, consulting services and business assistance to NSC;

WHEREAS, NKK and NSC desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an
additional year, through 2002; and

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:

1.   Capitalized terms as used herein and not defined herein shall have the same
     meaning as set forth in the Agreement.

2.   In accordance with Section 15 of the Agreement, the term of the Agreement
     is hereby extended for an additional Contract Year, from January 1, 2002
     through December 31, 2002 (the "2002 Contract Year").

3.   The Reimbursable Expenses Cap for the 2002 Contract Year shall be Six
     Million Dollars ($6,000,000).

4.   Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has the requisite
     power and authority to enter into this Amendment, including, without
     limitation, that all necessary corporate proceedings have been duly taken
     as required under Section 15 of the Agreement.

5.   Except as amended hereby, all of the terms of the Agreement shall remain in
     full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 6 as of the
date first set forth above.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION                  NKK CORPORATION


By:                                         By:
   ---------------------------------           ---------------------------------

Title:                                      Title:
      ------------------------------              ------------------------------

Date:                                       Date:
      ------------------------------              ------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1347

___________

Alfredo Perez Pena, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Minnesota.

Red Wing Shoe Co., A Minnesota *

Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 1999

Filed: November 1, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Perez Pena appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment that

dismissed his claim of racial discrimination in hiring against Red Wing Shoe Company

brought under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Pena also appeals the

district court's denial of his motion to compel a response to discovery and the award

of sanctions imposed for bringing that motion. We have reviewed the parties' briefs

and the record, and we affirm the dismissal of the claim on the basis of the wellreasoned order of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also affirm the denial of
-2-

the discovery motion and the award of sanctions on the basis of the magistrate judge's

thorough order as affirmed by the district court. See id.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny TAYLOR and Kenyata Curtis.

No. 2002-KO-2809.

Supreme Court *of*Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Curtis, Kenyata;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 414-426; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-KA-1993.

Denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41502 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE SANCHES-PENALOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-418-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Sanches-Penalosa has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanches-Penalosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 02-PDB-097.

No. 2002-OB-3222.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Fesperman, Rebecca;—Plaintiff; Applying for Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 02-PDB-097.

Leave to appeal denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      115242
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              5341418
<ALLOWANCES>                                930000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4702319
<PP&E>                                    15607366
<DEPRECIATION>                             1455579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            23194927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     32213423
<BONDS>                                    2192374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                     17
<COMMON>                                     15949
<OTHER-SE>                               (11225836)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              23194927
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          19948895
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             10005572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          13821807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           2147140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (8939044)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.65)


</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 398 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4840 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22 (legislative day, MARCH 19), 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 18, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, with an amendment and an amendment to the 

title 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 19791981 Cleveland Avenue in 

6 Columbus, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office’’. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4840 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin 

5 Post Office’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to designate 

the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1981 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ‘Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office’.’’. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS

PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 398 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4840 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Columbus, Ohio, as the ‘‘Clarence D. Lumpkin al Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in 

MAY 18, 2010 

Reported with an amendment and an amendment to the 

title 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS