alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 99-1124SI

_____________ United States of America, * * On Appeal from the United Appellee, * States District Court * for the Southern District v. * of Iowa. * Hilario Avila, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 4, 2000 Filed: January 25, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Hilario Avila appeals from the final judgment of the District Court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the District Court-2-

erred in not granting Avila a downward departure, and in imposing a 2-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement. We conclude the District

Court’s refusal to depart downward is unreviewable, because its statements, taken as a whole, indicate it was aware of its authority to depart downward and it exercised its discretion not to do so. See UnitedStates v. Knight , 96 F.3d 307, 311 (8th Cir. 1996). We further conclude the District Court did not err in imposing a 2-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, because Avila’s fear for his safety does not excuse the fact that he eluded authorities for over a year. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1998) ; UnitedStates v. Taylor , 997 F.2d 1551, 1559-60 (D.C. Cir. 1993); United States v. Lyon , 959 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1992).
Inaccordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed the record for any nonfrivolous issues and have found none. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6659

IMA Life North America, 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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors





Sanmina-SCI Corporation:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-131360, 333-61042, 333-50282, 333-39316, 333-95467, 333-84221, 333-84039, 333-76279, 333-71313, and 33-97782) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-165435, 333-157099, 333-84704, 333-112605, 333-108942, 333-104692, 333-100236, 333-87946, 333-83110, 333-75616, 333-64294, 333-39930, 333-79259, 333-23565, 33-90244, and 33-66554) of Sanmina-SCI Corporation our report dated November 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sanmina-SCI Corporation as of October 2, 2010 and October 3, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended October 2, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of October 2, 2010, which report appears in the October 2, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Sanmina-SCI Corporation.





Our report dated November 24, 2010 refers to an accounting change upon adoption of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141(R) (Revised 2007), Business Combinations (ASC Topic 805 , Business Combinations ), at the beginning of fiscal 2010.











Mountain View, California


November 24, 2010
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (FileNos. 033-83394, 033-86340, 033-99664 and 333-16095) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 033-62788, 033-83406,333-39413, 333-58542 and 333-122343) of Zonagen, Inc. of our reportdated March 7, 2006 relatingto the consolidated financial statements of Zonagen, Inc. and subsidiary which appears in this Form10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Consolidated FinancialData” in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JESSICA ROSE THOMAS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-537 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 29, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; J. Frank Porter, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Savannah, GA

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advice the public that an 
environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed Phase 
III, IV, and V extension of the Harry S. Truman Parkway, Savannah, 
Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Marvin Woodward, Transportation Manager, Federal Highway 
Administration, Suite 300, 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 
30367, Telephone (404) 347-3041; or Mr. David E. Studstill, State 
Environment/Location Engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation, 
Office of Environment/Location, 3993 Aviation Circle, Atlanta, Georgia 
30336, Telephone (404) 699-4401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Georgia 
Department of Transportation (GDOT), will prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to construct a 4 lane limited 
access highway on new location from the terminus of the existing Phase 
I segment at Derenne Street to the Abercorn Street extension. The 
project length is approximately 10.3 km. The proposed project is 
necessary to provide additional capacity to mitigate congestion for 
north-south traffic on the east side of Savannah.
    Alternatives under consideration include: (1) The ``no-build'', and 
(2) A controlled access highway on new location.
    Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will 
be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. A public 
hearing will be held and a public notice will be given of the time and 
place of the hearing.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed 
project are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments 
and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or 
questions concerning this proposed action should be directed to the 
FHWA at the address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. Georgia's approved 
clearinghouse review procedures apply to this program.)

    Issued on: April 6, 1995.
Marvin Woodward,
Transportation Manager, Atlanta, Georgia.
[FR Doc. 95-9585 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
```
Exhibit 10.46






Exhibit 10.46#




PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC.




NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR

RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT

(2009 Equity Incentive Plan)




Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to its 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”), hereby grants to the non-employee director listed below (the “Participant”), the number of
units (the “Units”) set forth below (the “Award”). The Award is subject to the terms and
conditions of this Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (this “Agreement”) and the Plan, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Any capitalized term
used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Plan.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Participant:
	 	[                    ]
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Number of Units
awarded:
	 	[                    ]
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date of grant:
	 	January 1, 2010






Period of Restriction: The Period of Restriction shall end on January 1, 2011, or such earlier
date as provided in the Plan (the “Vesting Date”), provided that the Participant continuously
serves on the Board from the date of grant until the Vesting Date. Notwithstanding the above, the
Units shall immediately vest on a pro-rata basis (proportionally to the number of days that the
Participant served on the Company’s Board during the 2010 calendar year) upon the Participant’s
resignation or other termination from the Board prior to the Vesting Date. Any Units that do not
vest shall be forfeited.



Payment: Once vested, the Units shall be paid to the Participant, in the form of one Share per
vested Unit, within 20 days after becoming vested.



By signing below, the Participant acknowledges that he shall bear the risk of loss with
respect to the Shares underlying the Units. The Participant further acknowledges receipt of, and
understands and agrees to the terms and conditions of, this Agreement and the Plan. As of the date
of grant of the Units, the Participant accepts this Award and acknowledges that this Agreement and
the Plan set forth the entire understanding between the Participant and the Company regarding the
Award and supersede all prior oral and written agreements relating thereto. This Agreement can be
executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together
shall constitute one and the same document.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC.	 	Participant: [                    ]	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:
	 	 	 	Date:
#### Vurn L. GARRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69013.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 18, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*59
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of Ms Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18157-18158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10007]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 94-43]


Ekambaram Parameswaran, M.D., Denial of Application; Correction

    In notice document 96-6978 appearing on page 11871 in the issue of 
Friday, March 22, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 11871, in the second column, last paragraph, 10th line from 
the bottom ``832(f)'' should read ``823(f)''.


[[Page 18158]]


    Dated: April 17, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10007 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), I, Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: August 16, 2010



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Francis E. ODonnell, Jr.                           
|Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., M.D.                         
|Chief Executive Officer; Chairman of the Board; Director

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Along Mobile Technology Inc., Inc., Inc. for the Quarter Ending January 31, 2006, I, Li Jian Wei, Chief Executive Officer of Along Mobile Technology Inc. hereby 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 and belief, that: 

 

1.     Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the periodended January 31, 2006, fairly represents in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Along Mobile Technology Inc.

 
| Dated: March 27, 2006 |
|-----------------------|

 

**ALONG MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Li Jian Wei*Chief Executive Officer |
|-----|------------------------------------------|
#### Heywood Blaufeux et al., Appellants, v Samuel Paznik, Doing Business as B.L.S. Realty Company, Respondent.

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered September 29, 1988, which denied their cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint and to *574strike the defendant’s third affirmative defense and which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff real estate brokers seek to recover a commission, claiming they obtained a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase the defendant’s Brooklyn property for the price requested by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant frustrated a binder agreement entered into with their buyer and subsequently sold the property to third parties, refusing to pay the plaintiffs’ commission. The binder agreement relied on by the plaintiffs provided for a sale price of $3,000,000 with a brokerage commission of $150,000. However, the binder omitted mention of many key terms, including an agreed-upon contract date, the method for paying the purchase price, whether by cash or purchase-money mortgage or combination, the amounts to be paid at contract and at closing, when closing was to take place, and when the seller, who had his business on the premises and intended to remain for some months, would have to vacate.

A real estate broker is entitled to his commission only when he procures a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able to purchase on the terms set forth by the seller *(see, Rusciano Realty Servs. v Griffler,*62 NY2d 696; *Lane-Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp.,*28 NY2d 36; *Kaelin v Warner,*27 NY2d 352; *Skalky Realty v Willens,*144 AD2d 405; *Concordant Assocs. v Slutsky,*104 AD2d 920; *Wykagyl Agency v Rothschild,*100 AD2d 934). It is undisputed that in the discussions and in the binder agreement there was no meeting of the minds between buyer and seller *(see, Monaco v Nelson, 121*AD2d 371). The parties failed to agree on terms customarily encountered in real estate sales transactions, such as the closing date, and in the absence of agreement on essential terms, the plaintiffs did not earn any commission *(see, TriState Capital v Lewis,*134 AD2d 340). In light of the plaintiffs’ failure to even allege that essential terms were agreed upon by both the buyer and seller, we conclude that summary judgment was properly awarded to the seller.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9828]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Notice of Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

    1. In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-462) announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, DOD, 
Subcommittee on Disease Control.
    Date of Meeting: 20-21 April 1995.
    Time: 0800-1600.
    Place: U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious 
Diseases (USAMRIID), Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
    Proposed Agenda: Review of the Preservation of Stocks of 
Smallpox Vaccine.

    2. A portion of this meeting will be closed to the public for an 
intelligence briefing in accordance with section 552b(c) of title 5, 
U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof and title 5, U.S.C., 
appendix 1, sub-section 10(d). Should additional information be 
desired, please contact the Executive Secretary, AFEB, Skyline Six, 
5109 Leesburg Pike, Room 667, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3258.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-9828 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7012

United Scope 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.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
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : F R E D G E O R G E L A B A N K O F F , D ebt or. F R E D G E O R G E L A B A N K O F F ; e t a l., A p p el l an t s, v. G EN ERA L M O TO RS A CCEPTA N CE C O R P O R A T I O N ; e t a l., A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 60038 B A P N o. 09- 1294 ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e N in th C ir c u it B ankrup t cyA pp el l at e P anel P appa s , Jury , a nd K w a n, B a nkrupt c yJudge s , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED APR23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 60038 2 F r e dG e o r g e L ab a n k o f

f , S w e tlan aL ab a n k o f

f , L u d m ilaS h p itj, an dS h p itj L abanko ff

G ener alT rust(“ appel l ant s” ) app ea l pro se f rom the B ankrup t cy A ppe l l a t e P a ne l ’ s ( “ B A P ” ) or de ra f f i rm i ng the ba nkrupt c yc ourt ’ s or de rabs t a i ni ng f r om de c i di ng a n a dve r s a rypr oc e e di ng a ga i ns tappe l l e e s a nd di s m i s s i ng ap p e lla n ts ’ a d v e r s a ryp r o c e e d in g w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . W e d is m is s . W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e b a n k rup tc yc o u rt’s d e c is io n to ab s ta in p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 4 ( d ) . W e al so l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e d en i al o f ap p el l an t s’ m o t i o n t o recu se th e b a n k rup tc yju d g e . Se e G r e e ne v . U ni te d States (

I n r e Souz a) , 795 F . 2d 855, 857 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ( the not i c e of appe a l f r om aba nkrupt c yc ourtde c i s i on m us tbe f ile dw ith in th e tim e p r o v id e db yB a n k rup tc yR u le 8 0 0 2 ) . A p p el l an t s’ req u estfo r j u d i ci al n o t i ce an dm o t i o n t o stri k e ap p el l ees’ o p e n in g b r ie f

a r e d e n ie d . D I S M I S S E D .