alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| | Direct Phone: | (503) 952-7329        
| | ------------- | ----------------------
| | Direct Fax:   | (503) 952-7414        
| | E-Mail:       | mark.peterman@wfsg.com

## EXHIBIT 10.2

August 4, 2003

Bradley B. Newman
Wilshire Financial Services Group Inc.
14523 SW Millikan Way, Suite 200
Beaverton, Oregon  97005

Re:      Wilshire Financial Services Group Inc. - Change-in-Control Plan

Dear  Brad,

Wilshire Financial Services
Group Inc. has provided you with a Change-in-Control Plan dated as of June 22,
2000, as modified by a letter agreement dated April 5, 2001. Section 7.6 of the
Change-in-Control agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:

| | 7.6      Term
| | -------------

| | This
Plan shall expire and be of no further force and effect on December 31, 2003
provided, however, if the Company engages an investment banker to determine if
Wilshire Credit Corporation should and could be sold under terms and conditions
satisfactory to the Company, then this Plan shall continue or re-commence and
then shall expire and be of no further force and effect on the date that is 90
days after termination of the services of the investment banker, unless by such
date there is an agreement or letter of intent executed by Wilshire Credit
Corporation and/or the Company for the potential sale of Wilshire Credit
Corporation or its assets.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this letter correctly
expresses your understanding of our agreement, please sign one duplicate
original in the space provided below and return it to me.

| | Sincerely yours,
| | ----------------

| | Stephen P. Glennon     
| | -----------------------
| | Chief Executive Officer

MHP:lb
Enclosure

|Agreed: | ----------------------------------
|------- | ----------------------------------
|        | Bradley B. Newman                 
|        | Date:  August 4, 2003
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Appellant consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. **

§ 636(c).

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LERAJJAREAN RA-O-KEL-LY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL JOHNSON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35837

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00645-MHW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 21, 2011*** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations

FILED

NOV 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35837

of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Appellant’s access-to-courts claim

because Appellant failed to allege any facts to establish that he has been hindered

from pursuing a nonfrivolous claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53

(1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, inmate must “demonstrate that a

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded”).

The district court also properly dismissed Appellant’s retaliation claims

because Appellant failed to allege facts that would establish that defendants took

adverse action against him because he exercised his constitutional rights. See Rhodes

v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim).

Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

Appellant’s “Motion for Ruling on Opening Brief” is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 8
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 21 filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 8
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-88124, No. 33-88180, No. 333-09623, No. 333-39060, No. 333-39064, No.
333-39290, and No. 333-61588 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 12, 2001,
relating to the financial statements as of and for the years ended October 31,
2001, 2000 and 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shuffle
Master, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2001.


Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 29, 2002                                           Deloitte & Touche LLP
Proclamation 8297 of October 1, 2008

# National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, 2008

During National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we underscore our commitment to fighting and preventing this devastating disease.  Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer among women, and we must strengthen our support of those who are living with this disease while continuing to work toward a cure.

Breast cancer can be attributed to many factors, including age, genetics, obesity, and family history.  Women who exercise regularly, maintain healthy diets, and have yearly visits with their doctors are less likely to get breast cancer.  Various screening measures such as mammograms, regular breast self-exams, and clinical breast exams can help detect cancer before it has a chance to spread.  Early detection allows for early intervention, helps make treatment more effective, and gives hope to patients and saves lives.

America leads the world in medical research, and my Administration will continue to support efforts to treat and cure breast cancer.  Since 2005, the Cancer Genome Atlas has studied the genetic sources of all types of cancer, and last year, I signed the “National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act of 2007,” which will help millions of low-income and uninsured women get the screenings they need to detect cancer early.  First Lady Laura Bush has encouraged women around the world to take charge of their health and emphasized the importance of screenings and early detection. In partnership with Federal agencies, State health agencies, and other medical professionals, my Administration has taken action to improve our Nation's healthcare system and helped promote the prevention, detection, and treatment of breast cancer.

This month, we honor those currently battling the disease and all who have survived the fight against breast cancer.  We are inspired by their strength and determination.  We recognize and applaud the hard-working caregivers and researchers who are dedicated to providing comfort and assistance to those with breast cancer and to treating and curing this disease.  We also remember those lost to breast cancer and extend our thoughts and prayers to their families.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2008 as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  I call upon Government officials, businesses, communities, health care professionals, educators, volunteers, and the people of the United States to continue our Nation's strong commitment to preventing, treating, and ultimately curing breast cancer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.



[FR Doc. E8-23724 Billing code 3195-W9-P
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

      ( print page 58291)    
Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended  (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to InQ, Inc., 30501 Agoura Road, Suite 203, Agoura Hills, CA 91301.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., both Associates of Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., own in the aggregate more than ten percent of InQ, Inc. Therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: September 22, 2008.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E8-23461 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00295-MEH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sharon Jones,

Defendant.

 

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and conviction,

and the defendant was sentenced to probation. As a result, all the conditions of an appearance

bond imposed by the court as a pretrial matter to secure the defendant’s release, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or sureties, if

applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court shall

hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety or the

defendant. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael J . Watanabe

By: 

 United States Magistrate Judge

 DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cr-00295-MEH Document 37 Filed 01/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,999
<SECURITIES>                                     6,478
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,815
<PP&E>                                             163
<DEPRECIATION>                                      65
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           267
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,263
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    830
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                830
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
#### Travis Dallas BOWEN, Manuel Pernandez and Theo John Lelekis, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 19, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### PHYPERS v. DANLEY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, and

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VIN # JTEES42A182076495;

Defendants.

 

ORDER TO SEAL

The Court has for consideration the government's Motion to Seal wherein the government

asks this Court to seal its Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem in this case, as well as the

government's Motion to Seal, and any order issued with regard to this motion. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED that the government's Motion to Seal, this Order, and the Verified

Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem, as well as any order issued by this Court in disposition of

Verified Complaint are hereby sealed until the defendants have been located and arrested, or until

further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of ________________, 2011.

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 2-1 filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 397 V

UNPUBLISHED

GLORIA GUERRERO

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 3 , 2021

Voluntary dismissal; Order

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On January 8, 2021

, Gloria Guerrero filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 1 0 through 34

. 2

Petitioner alleged that s he suffered a vaccine injury from the influenza vaccination s he

received on December 9, 2019

. ECF no. 1

. O n August 30 , 2021

, Petitioner filed a notice

of voluntary dismissal.

In light of Petitioner ’s “notice of dismissal at any time before service of

respondent’s report” pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A), this case is dismissed

without prejudice. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case

, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition,

I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755.
Case 1:11-cv-02320-WJM Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02320-WJM Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02320-WJM Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending November 4, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBEACON BANCORP                                                                                                          * 3A5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robin Rodriguez

v. Case No. 08-cv-332-PB

United States of America

ORDER

Re: Document No. 5, Motion for Reconsideration

Ruling: 

Granted. While the prior order correctly sets the fee based

upon the statute and the custodial information, that information

and averages were skewed by substantial sums in the account which

are no longer present. The initial fee is reset to $9.00.

Otherwise the monthly order stands.

/s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: September 11, 2008

cc: Robin Rodriguez, Pro Se

Case 1:08-cv-00332-PB Document 6 Filed 09/11/08 Page 1 of 1
The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2082

___________ Sharon Renee Daugherty, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the Unite d States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District o f Missouri. Associated Equipment Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 6, 1997

Filed: August 12 , 1997

___________ Bef ore McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD , Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Sharon Renee Daugherty appeals from the distric t court & s 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of her Title

1 VII action. Having reviewed the record and Daugherty & s br ief, we conclude that the judgment of the distric t-2-

court was correct and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2243

JAMES LAWRENCE SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HONORABLE ED CLONTZ; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1; 

JANE DOE 2; MARTHA ELIZABETH GRIST; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lawrence Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Lawrence Smith appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state 

a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. 

Clontz, No. 1:14-cv-00269-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 20, 2014, 

entered Oct. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined tha t 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. 02-50548 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
PEDRO DE LA ROSA-VARGAS Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(01-CR-27) October 9, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Pedro De La Rosa-Vargas, federal prisoner # 15075-180, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for modification of his

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that
Amendment 632 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines should be applied retroactively to re duce his offense level under U.S.S.G.1 See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), comment. (n. 1(B)(ii)) (Nov. 2001).

2 See United States v. Lopez , 26 F.3d 512, 515 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).
2 § 2L1.2. Amendment 632 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), p.s. and, therefore, it is not retroactive. Further, under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2, as amended, De La Rosa-Vargas’ offense level would have
remained the same because his prior conviction for burglary of a
h abitation is considered a crime of violence under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) and its application notes. 1 Because Amendment 632 is not retroactive, the district court lacked authority to modify De La Rosa-Vargas’ sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 2

AFFIRMED.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 192 filed 12/19/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Anna Castano, Respondent, *v.*David Cook, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 1, 1956.

*941
      *Hugo J. Frankl*for appellant.

*Jacob I. Holstein*for respondent.

*Her Curiam.*

Appeal from judgment was not taken within 20 days after service of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry, as required by sections 155 and 156 of the Municipal Court Code. The orders appealed from are not appealable as of course.

If the defendant’s appeal was timely, no substantial reason is presented warranting reversal. The evidence fully justifies the judgment after inquest in the amount of $750.

The appeal should be dismissed, with $10 costs.

Eder, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, etc.