alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50192.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*518Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Scott Michael Lesowitz, Brace R. Cas-tetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jami Lynn Ferrara, Law Office of Jami L. Ferrara, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Appellant.

Juan Carlos Hernandez-Hernandez, Post, TX, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for three counts of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); and three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Hernandez-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Jackson,*577 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2009).

Hernandez-Hernandez also contends that he was denied his right of allocution under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). We agree with the parties that the district court failed to afford Hernandez-Hernandez the right to allocute at sentencing, and that the error was not harmless because the court could have imposed a shorter sentence by departing further under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. *See United States v. Gunning,*401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing so that the district court may afford Hernandez-Hernandez the opportunity to allocute.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-20433 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Jorge Luis Batalla, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-32-1

______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appo inted to represent Jorge Luis Batalla has moved for leave to with draw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Ci r. 2011). Batalla has not filed a response. We have review ed counsel’s briefs and the relevant

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 30, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20433 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024No. 23-20433

2 portions of the record reflected th erein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 23-20433 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000701

19-JAN-2017

10:22 AM
exv10w1







Exhibit 10.1




VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY



March 9, 2009




GlaxoSmithKline

2301 Renaissance Boulevard

Mail Code RN0210

King of Prussia, PA 19406





	Attn.:	 	 Vice President, Business Development

Center of Excellence for External Drug Development





GlaxoSmithKline

Greenford Road

Greenford, Middlesex

UB6 OHE





	Attn.:	 	 Vice President, Transactions

Worldwide Business Development






	 	Re:	 	 Development and License Agreement among SmithKline Beecham Corporation, doing
business as GlaxoSmithKline, Glaxo Group Limited (collectively “GSK”) and EPIX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“EPIX”) dated December 11, 2006 (the “Agreement”)





Dear Sir or Madam:



     Reference is made hereby to the Agreement. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein
shall have the meaning provided in the Agreement.



     This letter agreement is entered into to modify on a temporary basis for the limited time
period described below certain obligations of EPIX, as set forth below, with respect to the three
(3) EPIX Programs under the Agreement. For avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall modify or
amend and the terms of this letter agreement shall not apply in any manner to EPIX’s obligations
under the Agreement with respect to the 5-HT4 Partial Agonist Program (the three (3) remaining EPIX
Programs are hereinafter collectively the “Non-5HT4 Programs”).



     GSK and EPIX hereby agree that, effective March 13, 2009 and continuing until September 13,
2009, EPIX shall be permitted to reduce the number of persons and discovery teams assigned to
performing EPIX’s research and Development obligations on the Non-5HT4 Programs under the Agreement
to one (1) discovery team with members having expertise in computational chemistry, medicinal
chemistry and biology and ADME support. That discovery team shall be assigned to perform research
and Development services under the Agreement as may be determined by the JSC from time to time.
GSK hereby agrees that such reduction in staffing and activities during such limited period shall
not constitute a breach by EPIX of any of its obligations under the Agreement. Upon the expiration
of such period, EPIX’s obligations under the Agreement shall revert automatically to those
obligations on the terms as set forth in the Agreement.



 









 





     Please indicate GSK’s agreement to the foregoing by signing and returning a copy of this
letter to the undersigned at your earliest convenience.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kim C. Drapkin
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kim C. Drapkin 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 



Agreed and acknowledged:




SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Richard M. Keenan
 	 
	 	Name:  	Richard M. Keenan 	 
	 	Title:  	VP, CEEDD 	 
	 




	cc:	 	 GlaxoSmithKline

2301 Renaissance Boulevard

Mail Code RN0220

King of Prussia, PA 19406






	 	   Attn.:	 	 Vice President and Associate General Counsel

R&D Legal Operations





2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANNIE M. KAPLAN,

Appellant,

v.

PALM TRAN, INC., A Florida Not For Profit Corporation, and PALM 

BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-154 

[February 7, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CA011971XXXXMB.

John J.R. Skrandel of Jerome F. Skrandel, PL, North Palm Beach, for 

appellant.

David C. Behar and Rachel Fahey, Assistant County Attorneys, Palm 

Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN, and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

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 of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2009



/S/ JACKSON E. REASORJackson E. ReasorPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal executive officer)




29
Exhibit
23




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors


World
Acceptance Corporation:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-52166, 33-98938, 333-14399, 333-107426, 333-135621, 333-153212) on Form S-8
and the registration statement (No. 333-139445) on Form S-3 of our reports dated
May 29, 2009 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of World Acceptance
Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2009 and March 31, 2008, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended March 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of March 31, 2009, which reports appear in the annual
report on Form 10-K of World Acceptance Corporation for the year ended March 31,
2009.  Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to
the fact that the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes effective April 1, 2007.











Greenville,
South Carolina


May 29,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      28,265,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,471,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,978,00)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            57,074,000
<PP&E>                                       3,839,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,224,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,163,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,713,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,520,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,163,000
<SALES>                                     28,389,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,389,000
<CGS>                                       16,356,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,356,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,605,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,034,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (423,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,556,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (769,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            787,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               4,537,000<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,324,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
<FN>
<F1>ON MAY 19, 1999, THE COMPANY COMPLETED THE SALE OF ITS CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
MANAGEMENT BUSINESS. THE COMPANY RECORDED A GAIN ON SALE OF DISCONTINUED
OPERATIONS OF $4,919,000, NET OF TAXES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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).

HL/Inventory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GUADENCIO CAYETANO-CAMACHO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50053

D.C. No. 3:07-CR-03267-JLS-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Guadencio Cayetano-Camacho appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United

FILED

MAR 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HL/Inventory

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

Cayetano-Camacho contends the district court erred by applying a “crime of

violence” sentencing enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii),

because his prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts on a minor under 14, in

violation of California Penal Code § 288(a), does not constitute sexual abuse of a

minor. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d

507, 509 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Under Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June
30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Bennett L. Nussbaum
|Bennett L. Nussbaum    
|                       
|August 25, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1997
<CASH>                                      14,116,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              175,679,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                              1,249,215,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,587,971,000
<PP&E>                                   1,128,681,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,941,409,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,392,613,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   148,876,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,188,618,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,921,409,000
<SALES>                                 13,218,715,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        13,338,150,000
<CGS>                                    9,902,862,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           12,996,629,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,079,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            319,442,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               114,999,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               204,443,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOLLIVER QUACO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-275-A-A) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Tolliver Quaco, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen Ann Tutty, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Quaco , No. CR-90- 275-A-A (E.D. Va. July 9, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2022

No. 04-22-00663-CV

$16,370.00 U.S. CURRENCY,

Appellant

v.

STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI14611

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Jorge Perez’s brief was due on December 16, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a). To date, Appellant has not filed the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the 

brief.

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1998, no pet.). Appellant’s written response must include a reasonable explanation for 

Appellant’s failure to timely file the brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). 

If Appellant fails to show cause as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed without 

further notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo, 975 S.W.2d at 63.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 1191.

#### Illinois ex rel. Pusch *v.*Mulcahy, Sheriff, et al.

June 10, 1946.

*Robert E. Bryant*for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
The labeled counties are eligible for

disaster assistance as of September 6.

NOTE:

Unemployment rates by county and disaster assista

Florida, October 2005, not seasonally adju

(State rate = 3.5%; U.S. rate = 4.6%)

7.0% or more6.0% to 6.9%5.0% to 5.9%4.0% to 4.9%3.9% or below

Unemployment Rate

Franklin

3.9%

Gulf

4.0%

Bay, 3.5%

Walton

2.5%

Okaloosa

2.8%

Santa

Rosa4.1%

Co

3.

Franklin

3.7%

Gulf

3.4%

Bay, 3.5%

Walton

3.2%

Okaloosa3.1%

Santa

Rosa

3.4% Escambia 3.6%
#### Sharon Strait et al., Appellants, v Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 868]

Present—Scudder, *P.J.,*Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
#### David Griffith et al., Respondents, v Michael Gallagher et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[852 NYS2d 869]

*1299Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1299

___________ John E. Searcy, III, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Charles E. Clawson, Jr., individually * and in his official capacity as Judge of * [UNPUBLISHED] the Chancery Court of Van Buren * County, Arkansas, Third Division, * Twentieth Judicial District, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 2003 Filed: July 2, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John E. Searcy, III, appeals the District Court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Judge Charles E. Clawson, Jr., of the Chancery Court of Van Buren County, Arkansas, who presided over a quiet-title action involving property2 See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). -2- the Internal Revenue Service had seized from Searcy. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County , 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir. 2000) (noting court reviews questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction de novo), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1183 (2001).We agree with the District Court that Searcy’s claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. 2Searcy’s due process claims would have required the District Court to determine the propriety of Judge Clawson’s rulings on jurisdiction, evidentiary issues, and the merits of the quiet-title action. SeeBallinger v. Culotta , 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting with the exception of habeas corpus petitions, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments; jurisdictional bar applies to straightforward appeals as well as to "indirect attempts by federal plaintiffs to undermine state court decisions"). Further, this court has previously rejected the void-judgment argument Searcy urges on appeal. See Snider v. City of Excelsior Springs, Mo. , 154 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting that under Rooker-Feldman rule, "no federal district court has jurisdiction to decide that the state court judgment was void"). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 12



COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

For Years Ended December 31

(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)



|                                               |  | West Penn Power Company |        
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -------
|                                               |  | 2002                    |        
|Earnings:                                      |  |                         |        
|Net income                                     |  | $                       | 93,984 
|Fixed charges (see below)                      |  |                         | 48,892 
|Income taxes                                   |  |                         | 44,512 
|Amortization of capitalized interest           |  |                         |       
|                                               |  |                         |        
|Total Earnings (as defined)                    |  | $                       | 187,388
|                                               |  |                         |        
|Fixed Charges:                                 |  |                         |        
|Interest expensed and capitalized              |  | $                       | 46,926 
|Estimated interest component of rental expense |  |                         | 1,966  
|                                               |  |                         |        
|Total Fixed Charges (as defined)               |  | $                       | 48,892 
|                                               |  |                         |        
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges             |  |                         | 3.83   

---

|** |  | Excludes the effect of the extraordinary charge.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------