alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40512

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNESTO ORLANDO LANZA-CHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-562-1

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ernesto Orlando Lanza-Chan appeals the 60-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being

found in the United States after deportation, a violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Lanza-Chan argues for the first time on appeal that the

magistrate judge did not have the jurisdiction or authority

to accept his guilty plea because the district court had not

referred the case to the magistrate judge. In United States
No. 02-40512

-2-

v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2002), this

court concluded that the district court must enter a proper

referral order, but found that a failure to do so causes a

procedural error, which can be waived, rather than a

jurisdictional defect. As in Bolivar-Munoz, Lanza-Chan

consented to proceedings before the magistrate judge and lodged

no objection to the absence of a referral order. Lanza-Chan

waived the procedural error. 

Lanza-Chan argues that the felony conviction that resulted

in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an

element of the offense that should have been charged in the

indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496;

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                            3471
<SECURITIES>                                     13000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      23098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 45943
<PP&E>                                           53782
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   73632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       52058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     73632
<SALES>                                          22236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 22236
<CGS>                                            16419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    16419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1343)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2099)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bobby GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3763.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2013.

Filed: April 24, 2013.

Stephen C. Moss, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph M. Marquez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Graves appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm, as the amendment did not lower Graves’s Guidelines range. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)) (eligibility for consideration under § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by amendment that lowers applicable Guidelines range); *United States v. Tolliver,*570 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir.2009) (where applicable Guidelines range was not lowered by amendment, district court lacked authority to reduce sentence).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
exv10w67






Exhibit 10.67



CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETS, HAS BEEN OMITTED
AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (THE “COMMISSION”) PURSUANT TO
RULE 24b-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.




Confidential




February 20, 2009




Andrew Gengos

Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development

Amgen Inc.

One Amgen Center Dr.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1000





			
	Re:	 	Amendment No. 4 to Collaboration and Option Agreement (Amgen Reference Number: 200625165)





Dear Mr. Gengos,



As you
know, Cytokinetics, Incorporated (“CK”) and Amgen Inc.
(“Amgen“) are parties to that
certain Collaboration and Option Agreement dated December 29, 2006, as amended (the “Option
Agreement “). By this letter amendment (this
“Amendment”), effective as of the date first set forth
above, CK and Amgen agree to amend the last sentence of Section 10.1 of the Option Agreement such
that it reads in its entirely as follows:




     “Within the ninety (90) day exercise period referenced in Sections 10.2.1, 10.2.3, 10.2.4 or
10.2.5, CK shall not commence any new Clinical Trials; provided, however, during such period CK may
commence the Phase IIa Trial designated as [***] and entitled [***]”.


A copy of the protocol for this trial (the “Study”) was provided by [***] of Cytokinetics to [***]
of Amgen via e-mail on February 19, 2009. Cytokinetics agrees that [***]



Except as expressly set forth herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain
in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined have the meaning
ascribed in the Option Agreement.



If the foregoing is acceptable and agreed to by Amgen, please so indicate by having an authorized
representative of Amgen sign this Amendment in the appropriate signature line below, and return
such signed copy to Marjorie Wagman, Associate General Counsel, at your earliest convenience. A
duplicate original is enclosed for your records. If you have any questions or comments, please do
not hesitate to contact Marjorie at (650) 624-2925 or by email at mwagman@cytokinetics.com.




Sincerely,




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Agreed and accepted:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael Rabson	 	 	 	Amgen Inc.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Andrew W. Gengos
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Michael Rabson

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Andrew W. Gengos	 	 
	Sr. Vice President,
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Business Development and Legal Affairs,

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Vice President, Strategy & Corporate	 	 
	and General Counsel

	 	 	 	 	 	Development	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Date:	 	 	 	 





 




*** Certain information on the page has been omitted and filed separately with the Commission.
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.




Amgen Contract No. 200625165-006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1245-20

DELVRON TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J.,

joined.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and ultimately sentenced to five

years in prison. In the bill of costs, the trial court assessed Appellant a $25 time payment

fee. See TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 133.103. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck a
DELVRON TURNER - 2

portion of that fee as being unconstitutional. Turner v. State, No. 05-19-01493-CR (Tex.

App. – Dallas Dec. 11, 2020). 

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the court’s

constitutional analysis. We recently handed down our opinion in Dulin v. State, Nos. PD0856-19 & PD-0857-19, 2021 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31,

2021), in which we held that the time payment fee was assessed prematurely because the

pendency of appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. As a result, there was no

need to reach the State’s constitutional arguments. 

We grant review on our own motion of the following ground:

Should the “Time Payment Fee” be struck as prematurely assessed?

Addressing that ground in light of Dulin, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals,

and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

The State’s petition is refused. 

DATE DELIVERED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.2



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Seth H. Ugelow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C Section 78(a) or 78o(d);
and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March 31, 2005

                                         By: /s/ Seth H. Ugelow
                                             ----------------------
                                             Seth H. Ugelow
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cynosure, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy W. Baker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2009 |  | /s/ Timothy W. Baker                                           
|                     |  | Timothy W. Baker                                               
|                     |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer