alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LEONAR

D B ER NOT, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 14-10569

15-10184 D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00093-KJM -4
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

n d FOOTE, * ** Distric t Judge
. Le ona rd B e rnot a

ppe a ls his se nte nc e for c onspira c y to c om m it m a il fra

ud in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1349. Hec ha lle nge s the a pplic a tion of a

vulne ra b le vic tim 

# FIL ED
D EC 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R
. App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Eliz a be th E. Foote , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by de signa

tion.e nha

nc e m e nt a

nd the im position of re s titution. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm
. 1. A two-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt m ay

be im pose d if the de fe nda

nt

“ kne wor should ha

v e known tha

t a vic tim of the offe nse wa s a vulne ra ble vic tim .” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). Thedistric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t B e rnot’ s

“ re a sona bly fore se e a b le ” vic tim s inc lude d the Ga rfinkle s, se e Unite d State

s v . Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd tha t the se hom e owne rs we re pa rtic u la rly vulne ra b le c om p a re d to othe r vic tim s of m a il fra u d, s e e Unite d State

s
v . Me n doza , 262 F.3d 957, 960-61 (9th C ir. 2001). 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c a lc ulat e d the Guide l ine range of 37 to 46
m onths a n d a rtic ulate d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c tors tha t it c onside re d, inc luding
a voiding unwa

rra n te d se nte nc ing dispa

ritie s, whic h support the

18-m onth se nte nc e im pose d. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly use d the va lue of the vic tim s’ lost e quity in the i r hom e , $316,744.79, a s the am ount of re stitution. Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 3663A(b)(1)(B )(i). B e rnot is not e ntitle d to a c re dit a ga inst there stitution for the down pa ym e nt he m a d e on the house
. Se e id. 4. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in orde ring im

m e diate re pa

ym e nt, whic h is the de fa

ult for re stitution unde

r 18 U.S.C . § 3572(d)(1). B e rnot did not
2obje c t to im

m e diate re p aym e nt a

t se n te nc ing, nor doe s he argue on a ppe a l tha t he is una ble to m a ke im

m e diate re pa

ym e nt. AFFIRM E D.

3
#### Steve STOCKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger WILLIAMS; Mary Ann Daigle; Janice Evans; Beverly Kaufman; J.R. Perez, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-51346.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2006.

David Rogers, William B. Gammon, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Adam Warren Aston, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Donald Steven Glywasky, Galveston County Legal Department, Galveston, TX, Jim D. Wiginton, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Brazoria, Angleton, TX, Frank Edward Sanders, Assistant County Attorney, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Harris, Houston, TX, David R. Hurley, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Fort Bend, Richmond, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Stanton E. Ross, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Infinity, Inc.;

     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;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

         (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 19, 2003


/s/ Stanton E. Ross
Stanton E. Ross, Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DULTON EARL JOHNSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30247

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00227-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2015**

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Dulton Earl Johnson appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

assault resulting in serious bodily injury committed within Indian Country, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. We have jurisdiction under 28 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

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

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

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

FILED

OCT 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-30247

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johnson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors adequately and address his 

argument for a within-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error, see United 

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. 

The record reflects that the district court considered Johnson’s arguments and 

thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Johnson next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Johnson’s sentence. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the 

totality of the circumstances, including the troubling nature of the offense. See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-71822, 333-134593,
333-148932 and 333-148933) and Form F-3 (Nos. 333-112136, 333-121611, 333-126416,
333-139707 and 333-149063) of our reports dated March 27, 2008, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of LanOptics Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of LanOptics Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|               |                                   
|-------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|               | /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
|              
|Haifa, Israel  | KOST, FORER, GABBAY and KASIERER  
|              
|March 27, 2008 | A member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
#### Fnu AMELIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 05-2268.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

Steven A. Morley, Morley, Surin & Griffin, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, John E. Cunningham III, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Fnu Amelia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Amelia fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Amelia cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); *INS v. Cardozcir-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 Amelia does not challenge the finding that she failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 17, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. For more information please contact Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please write Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or you can post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: January 13, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E9-1293 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### In the Matter of Kevin Martin, Appellant, v Teresa Tate, Respondent.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

*908Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
96-2321.

#### State v. Faller.

Licking App. No. 96CA01. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1518, 674 N.E.2d 371. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,493
<PP&E>                                          59,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,032)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           275
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,428)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,038
<SALES>                                          5,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,417
<CGS>                                            5,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,730)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Liquidation of Midland Insurance Company. American Standard Inc. et al., Appellants, et al., Claimants; Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation et al., Intervenors-Respondents, and Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 1, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion to strike Addendum A to appellants’ brief and references thereto in the appellants’ brief granted. Miscellaneous cross motion to seal Addendum A dismissed as academic.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSEPH A. M c DANIELS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30026

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00185-JLR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. Roba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Submitte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Joseph A. M c D anie ls a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 113-m onth prison sente nc e and thre e -y e a r te rm of supe rvise d re le a se im

pose d following his guilty -ple a c o nvic tion for interstat e tra nsporta tion 

# FIL ED D EC 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for prostitution, in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2421. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . M c Danie ls c onte nds thegove rnm e nt bre a c he d the ple a a gre e m e nt by a dvoc ating for a

thre e -y e ar te rm

of supe rvise d re le a s e in a ddition to the a gre e dupon te rm

of im prisonm e nt. W e re vie w de novo whe t he r the gove rnm e nt bre a c he d the p le a a gre e m e nt, se eUnite d State s v . W hitne y , 673 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd de te rm ine tha

t it did not. The

gove rnm e nt pe rform e d its obliga tion unde r the a gre e m e nt by

re c o m m e nding a

120-m onth te rm

of im p risonm e nt. M ore o ve r, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t the re c om

m e ndation of a thre e -y e ar te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se did not bre a c h the ple a a gre e m e nt, whe re the ple a a gre e m e nt a dvise d M c Danie ls tha t a te rm of supe rvise d re le a se wa s one of the sta tutory pe na ltie s for his offe nse , a nd wa s sile nt re ga

rding whe the r the gove rnm e nt c ould re c om

m e nd a te rm of supe rvise d re le a se . Se eUnite d State s v . Franc o-Lope

z, 312 F.3d 984, 989 (9th C ir. 2002) (whe n c onstruing a ple a a gre e m e nt, this c ourt m

u st de te rm ine what the de fe nda nt re a sona

b ly be lie ve d to be the t e rm s of theple a

a gre e m e nt a

t thetim e of the ple a ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 0 2 6 2
#### In the Matter of Nigel Joseph, Appellant, v Darwin LaClair, as Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 925]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 12, 2013 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, violent conduct and creating a disturbance. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged. Respondent affirmed the determination upon adminis*1024trative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s application, and this appeal ensued.

We reverse. Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer failed to properly investigate the reason why his requested inmate witnesses refused to testify. The record before us reveals that at least one of petitioner’s requested witnesses changed his mind with regard to testifying. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, petitioner’s inquiry as to why the subject inmate had changed his mind constituted a timely request that the Hearing Officer investigate the matter further *(cf. Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Prack,*98 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2012]; *compare Matter of Taylor v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2011]). Moreover, the requested inmate gave no reason for his refusal beyond that he did “not care to get involved,” which did not absolve the Hearing Officer of his obligation to personally ascertain the reasons for the inmate’s unwillingness to testify *(see Matter of H’Shaka v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2012]; *Matter of Hill v Selsky,*19 AD3d 64, 67 [2005]). The Hearing Officer’s failure to do so violated petitioner’s conditional right to call that witness and, as such, we must remit for a new hearing *(see Matter of H’Shaka v Fischer,*100 AD3d at 1057). In light of this conclusion, we need not address petitioner’s claims regarding the other requested witnesses.

Rose, J.P, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, petition granted and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30417(U).]