alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50098 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus THEODORE DONALD YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-98-CR-96-2

-------------------- August 24, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Theodore Donald Young appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an accessory after the fact to interstate or foreign travel in relation to a murder and for carrying and using a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Young asserts that: (1) his guilty plea was involuntary because the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) by failing to inform him that restitution might be ordered and (2) the district court erred in awarding restitution for certain costs.No. 00-50098 -2- In reviewing whether the district court complied with the dictates of Rule 11, this court “conduct[s] a straightforward, two-question ‘harmless error’ analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance affect substantial rights of the defendant?” United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h). The district court varied from Rule 11 procedures by failing to advise Young of the possibility of restitution. However, as Young has not alleged that the district court’s failure to advise him of the possibility of a restitution order was actually a material factor in his decision to plead guilty, the error did not affect Young’s substantial rights. See Johnson , 1 F.3d at 302. Young’s assertion that the district court erred in awarding restitution for certain losses is not properly before this court. As part of his written plea agreement with the Government, Young waived “his right to appeal his sentence on any ground,” except with respect to upward departures pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, p.s. Young has not challenged that waiver on appeal. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-4412 

 ) 

JAMES STIEBEN and JESSICA STIEBEN, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed July 6, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Linda H. Babb, Judge. 

Kara Berard Rockenbach and Lauren 

J. Smith of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., 

West Palm Beach, for Appellant. 

George A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten 

of Vaka Law Group, Tampa, and 

Kenneth C. Thomas, Jr., of Marshall 

Thomas, PL, Tampa, for Appellees. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

 Citizens Property Insurance Corporation seeks review of a final judgment 

awarding the insureds, James and Jessica Stieben, $233,610.02 in damages for breach 

of a homeowner's insurance policy. The cause of action arose after the parties 

disagreed as to the appropriate method of repairing sinkhole damage. We affirm the 
- 2 -

final judgment in all respects save for the award of money damages. We reverse to the 

extent that the trial court entered judgment for damages payable directly to the Stiebens 

without regard to the policy's loss settlement provision. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. 

Blaha, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D885, D887 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2016); Citizens Prop. Ins. 

Corp. v. Amat, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D448, D450 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 19, 2016); Tower Hill 

Select Ins. Co. v. McKee, 151 So. 3d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), review denied, 163 So. 

3d 511 (Fla. 2015). Under this provision, Citizens only has the obligation to pay for 

repairs as the work is performed under a subsurface repair contract. Blaha, 41 Fla. L. 

Weekly at D887; Amat, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D450. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51013-51014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20096]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 24, 2008, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. A permit was issued on August 25, 2008 to:

[[Page 51014]]

Ron Naveen,

Permit No. 2009-015

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-20096 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
WILLIAM BROWN

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5282

Opinion filed March 8, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

William Brown, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney Gen eral,

Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

THOMAS, B.L., OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  June 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      SSBC Fund Management Inc. (formerly Mutual Management Corp.)
Address:   388 Greenwich Street
           New York, New York 10013

Form 13F File Number:              28-4024

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Christina T. Sydor
Title:     Secretary
Phone:     (212) 816-6474

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Christina T. Sydor      New York, New York            August 16, 1999
----------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50525 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ORLANDO GARCIA

- ARREDONDO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 66

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Orlando Garcia

- Arredondo appeals his sentence of 57 months of imprisonment, imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). According to Garcia

- Arredondo, his sent ence is s ubstantively unreasonable, greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , and fails to account for his personal history and characteristics

.

* 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 February 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50525 Document: 00513880803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2017No. 16

- 50525

2 We review the substantive reasonableness of Garcia

- Arredondo’s sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The district court, which was “in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was presented with Garcia

- Arredondo’s mitigating arguments but concluded that a sente nce within the guidelines range was reasonable

. See United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Garcia

- Arredondo’s disagreement with the district court’s decision is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5 th Cir. 2009). Garcia

- Arredondo also argues that the illegal reentry guideline lacks an empirical basis and overstates the seriousness of illegal reentry offenses by using prior convictions to both calculate the base offense level and the criminal history category . We have previously rejecte d this “double counting” argument. S ee United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 30 (5th Cir. 2009). As to the empirical data underlying the illegal reentry guideline , t he district court could have reached, in its discretion and as part of its § 3553(a) analysis, a different decision as to the relevance of the amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and the underlying policy decisions. United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366

- 67 (5th Cir. 2009). That the district court did not do so, after consider ing the case before it , is also insufficient to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness accorded a within

- guidelines sentence. See United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 566 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-50525 Document: 00513880803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *Adam H. Bernstein, Appellant.*

*(Appea1 No.3.)*

Order unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *People v Bernstein,*([appeal No. 1] 163 AD2d 842 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Corning, J.&emdash;CPL art 440.) Present&emdash;Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.
#### ORY v. BOSIO et ux.*

No. 14302.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 24, 1933.

M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jos. A. Casey, of New Orleans, for appel-lees.

*

Rehearing denied May 22, 1933.

HIGGINS, Judge.

On July 28, 1931, plaintiff sued the defendants in solido for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on August 30,1980, in an automobile collision. The petition alleges that the defendants are of the full age of majority and residents of the city of New Orleans.

The deputy sheriff made several attempts to serve the citation upon the defendants at their residence on Carrollton avenue, where they had lived for three years, but was unable to do so because the defendants had left the city of ■ New'Orleans on July 25, 1931, and sojourned in Texas until midnight of August 30, 1931. On August 27, 1931, the deputy sheriff made a return that he was unable to find or locate defendants after a diligent search and inquiry because he was creditably informed that they were out of the state.

On the same day plaintiff filed a motion setting up these facts, together with the additional fact that the defendants had left no agent in the city upon whom service of citation could be made, and requested that a curator ad hoc be appointed to represent the absent defendants upon whom service of the citation and a copy of the petition might be made. The citation and petition were served the same day upon the duly appointed and qualified curator, who filed a return on September 29, 1931, to the effect that he had communicated by mail with the defendants and was thereafter informed by Joseph A. Casey, a practicing attorney and member of this bar, that he would represent the defendants.

On September 30,1931, defendants, through Mr. Casey, filed an exception of want of prop*512er citation,' contending that the citation upon the curator ad hoc was null and void and of no effect because they were domiciled in the city of New Orleans, and the action being one in personam, the court had no authority to appoint a curator ad hoc to represent them.

The exception was sustained by the trial judge and the plaintiff has appealed.

We believe the decision of this court in Mitchell v. Ernesto et al., 141 So. 818, is in point and decisive of the issues presented. In that ease we held (syllabus):

> “Personal judgment could not be obtained against nonresident, without personal service, through curator ad hoc.

> “Personal action cannot be brought against temporarily absent resident, without personal service, through appointment of curator ad hoc to represent him.”

See, also, Succession of Macheca, 147 La. 171, 84 So. 574, and Hobson et al. v. Peake, 44 *La.*Ann. 383, 10 So. 762.

Eor the reasons assigned the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Russell BERENS, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 01-55726.

D.C. No. CV-00-00393-VAP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.

Decided Nov. 8, 2002.

*383Before BRIGHT,* GOODWIN and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Myron H. Bright, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER**

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the district court in its order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on March 21, 2001.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Edna Mae YOUNG and Jimmie D. Young, her husband, Appellants, v. HILLER & TUCKER, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Feb. 9, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30064. D.C. No. CR-02-00083-EJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 14, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Martinez appeals the 211-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez argues that the district court erred by including a conviction obtained without counsel in calculating his criminal history under the Sentencing Guidelines. We disagree. We have held that “[a] defendant must prove the invalidity of a pri- or conviction by a preponderance of the evidence^]” and that to carry this burden the defendant “must make an affirmative showing ... that the prior conviction is invalid[.]” *United States v. Dominguez,*316 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Martinez argues that his waiver in a prior case was invalid, but cites no evidence in support of this contention. We conclude that, in these circumstances, he has failed to sustain his burden. *Id.; United States v. Allen,*153 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.1998).

Martinez also argues that the district court erred by considering the methamphetamine found in his car as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines. *United States v. Fox,*189 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir.1999). We disagree. The preponderance of the evidence, including the in*765formation provided by the informant and the location of the drugs, supports the district court’s conclusion that the methamphetamine was relevant conduct for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. *United States v. Asagba,*77 F.3d 324, 325-26 (9th Cir.1996) (district court’s factual findings must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence).

AFFIRMED.

2.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                             522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10404
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1221
<INVENTORY>                                      15979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 30194
<PP&E>                                           18486
<DEPRECIATION>                                   15638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                       24096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40519
<SALES>                                          20640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 20640
<CGS>                                            11842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                        4,150
<SECURITIES>                                 10,775
<RECEIVABLES>                                40,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                    610
<INVENTORY>                                  45,334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            102,506
<PP&E>                                      139,042
<DEPRECIATION>                               58,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              207,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        25,352
<BONDS>                                      20,000
<COMMON>                                         90
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  151,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                207,872
<SALES>                                     141,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            141,938
<CGS>                                        96,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               122,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              19,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                  6,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          12,791
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12,791
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.48


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Pulmonary-Allergy Drug Advisory Committee; Cancellation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee 
scheduled for February 20, 2008, is cancelled. This meeting was 
announced in the Federal Register of December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72737).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa A. Watkins, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 
Fishers Lane (for express delivery, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 
301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#217544534452400f7640554a484f52614745400f4949520f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5e1d0c7d0c6d49be2d4c1dedcdbc6f5d3d1d49bddddc69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 
in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512545. Please call the 
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    Dated: January 29, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1959 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.21  


Quarterly bonus program summary  


        Certain officers and employees in our marketing group and business development group participate in a quarterly bonus arrangement based on EBITDA from our
commercial activities during the quarter. Total participants include approximately 70-75 employees. The quarterly bonus pool for 2004 totaled approximately $4.3 million.