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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. FRANCISCO MEDINA CASTENEDA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-10125 D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00549-WBS-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2013 ** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Francisco Medina Casteneda appeals fro m the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

# FILED
FEB 18 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. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Casteneda’s sentence is within the m odified Sentencing Guidelines range. However, he contends that he argued befo re the district court that the disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators warranted a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and that the district court erred by failing to address that argument. Because Castene da did not object below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). Casteneda has not shown plain error affecting his substantial rights. See id.; see also United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Casteneda’s reliance on United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1008-10 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013), is misplaced b ecause, unlike Casteneda, Trujillo raised extensive non-frivolous arguments tether ed to specific § 3553(a) factors and received a sentence above the modified Gu idelines range. In addition, Casteneda has not shown a reasonable probability thatthe sentence would have been different absent the alleged error. See Dallman , 533 F.3d at 761-62. AFFIRMED
.

2
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended June 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a)-14(b) or 15(d)-14(b) 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.
  By:
    /s/ PERVEZ QURESHIPervez Qureshi President & Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1526

Illinois Tool Works: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 31.1

Section 302 Certification

I, John R. Plachetka,certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 25, 2013 |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John R. Plachetka                
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.          
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
| (1)   | the                quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Davi Skin, Inc. for the quarter                ended                September 30, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Davi                Skin,                Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Jan Wallace                                                                     |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                               |
| Name:  | Jan                Wallace                                                                         |
|   |                                                                                               |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                                               |
| Date:  | November                16, 2007                                                                   |

----
Exhibit 10.12

 

LEASE AMENDMENT NO. 1

 

WHEREAS, Boulder Station, Inc. (“Tenant”) and KB Enterprises (“Landlord”) have entered in a Ground Lease and Sublease dated June 1, 1993 (the “Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant agreed and intended as of such date that the appraised value of the lease be the higher of the fair market value of the land or the present value of lease payments;

 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant received advice from Carlsmith, Ball, Wichman, Case & Ichiki that the lease language is not inconsistent with that intent; and

 

WHEREAS, in  connection with Landlord’s accommodating requests for asset transfers needed by  Tenant for its gaming license needs, Landlord expressed a desire to memorialize the intent by amending the Lease;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to the Lease agree to amend the Lease by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 1.2. in Article I thereof as follows:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the market value of the Landlord’s interest shall not be deemed to be lower than the present value of the income stream remaining on the Lease.”

 

By executing below, the parties agree to this Amendment No. 1 to the Lease this 23rd day of December, 1996.

 

	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Glenn C. Christenson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Boulder   Station, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   W. J. Bullard
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
KB   Enterprises
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10450

GE Appliances, a Haier Company: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### STATE v. C. A. MEYERS.

(Filed 13 October, 1926.)

Appeal by defendant from *Grady, J.,*at February Term, 1926, of the Superior Court of SampsoN. No error.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Butler & Herring for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was indicted for a breach of the prohibition law and was convicted. This is his second appeal. *S. v. Meyers,*190 N. C., 239. The case seems to have been tried in substantial compliance with the previous decision and the law generally applicable, and we find in the record no valid reason for granting another trial.

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2014

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### J. B. RITTER v. HIGH FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 20 May, 1931.)

Appeal by defendant from *McElroy, J.,*and a jury, at September Term, 1930, of Mooee.

No error.

This is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendant alleging damage. The defendant denied negligence, set up the plea of contributory negligence and a release. Plaintiff contended the release was procured by fraud.

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto, were as follows:

“1. Was said paper-writing, purporting to be a release, dated 25 September, 1926, procured by misrepresentation and fraud, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

2. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

3. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his said injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

4. What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: $900 in addition to what plaintiff has already received.”

*II. F. Seawell & Son and J. O. Benegaf for plaintiff.*

*A. A. F. Seawell for defendant.*

Pee Oubiam.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence defendant made motions in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below overruled these motions, and in this we can see no error.

*808We tbink tbe evidence sufficient to- be submitted to tbe jury on tbe questions of negligence and contributory negligence. *Boswell v. Hosiery Mills,*191 N. C., 549; *Mahaffey v. Furniture Lines,*196 N. C., 810.

As to tbe evidence of fraud in procuring tbe release, we tbink it also sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury. *Butler v. Fertilizer Works,*195 N. C., 409. In law we find

No error.
#### F. F. SHORES AND wife, MARY LEE SHORES v. JAMES L. RABON and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 23 November, 1960.)

Appeal by defendant Insurance Company from *Armstrong, J.,*February 1960 Civil Term, of Union.

This cause was here at the Fall Term 1959 on appeal by defendant insurer from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $8,000. *Shores v. Rabón, 251*N.C. 790, 112 S.E. 556. It was then held feme plaintiff was not entitled to recover; male plaintiff was entitled to recover the debt due him on 5 January 1958' — one-half of the Reese nóte — but not in excess of $8,000 as fixed by the policy. The cause *429was remanded for a determination of the amount owing to the male plaintiff.

The parties then stipulated: “. . .FIFTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED ONE AND 47/100 DOLLARS ($15,201.47) was the balance due on the Note from C. Woodrow Reese and wife, Pearle W. Reese, to F. F. Shores and wife, Mary Lee Shores, as of January 5, 1958, after applying cash payments made thereon by C. W. Reese, *et ux”*Based on this stipulation the court entered judgment in favor of the male plaintiff for one-half the total debt, to-wit, $7,600.73. Defendant insurer excepted and appealed.

*O. L. Richardson and William G. Pittman for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Smith & Griffin for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cubiam.

Appellant contends the judgment is erroneous because the court declined to credit the debt with the value of the land received as a result of the foreclosure. This was one of the questions considered and determined adversely to the insurer on the prior appeal. The word “extinguished,” used in the concluding sentence of the opinion on the prior appeal, was used in the sense of payment in whole or in part.

That opinion is the law of the case. If deemed erroneous, the proper course to pursue was to petition for a rehearing, not to appeal again.

Affirmed.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Almond
                                Cherry
                                Edible tree nuts, general/other
                                Kiwi
                                Peach
                                Raisin grapes
                                Table grapes
                                Walnut
                                Wine grapes


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1879

GHL International, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Industrial Enterprises
      of
      America, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for
      the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in the Form
      10-QSB.





Dated: **May
      22, 2006**


/s/ James W. Margulies


**James
      W. Margulies**


Chief
      Financial Officer














The
      foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate
      disclosure document.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 29, 2012 J OHN LEY CL ERK IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 51 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 04 60 -DLG-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DANIEL ABREU-JIM ENEZ, a.k .a. Dann y , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt forth e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (May 29 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo se Rafa el Ro dr ig ue z, ap po in te d app el la te co un se l fo r Dan ie lAbr eu -J im en ez, h as fil eda m ot io n t o wi th dr aw on ap pe al , supp orte d b y a br ie f pr ep aredpu rs ua ntto Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2 d 4 93 (19 67 ). Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andAbre u- Ji m en ez’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es are AFFIRMED .

2