alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Felipe GONZALEZ-VILLANUEVA; Juanita Salvador-Ramirez, Petitioners, v. *936Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73058.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Felipe Gonzalez-Villanueva, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Hombland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel,. Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., Sada Manickam, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2);

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Felipe Gonzalez-Villanueva and his wife Juanita Salvador-Ramirez seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). As a result, we also lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ regulatory challenge to the BIA’s use of a single member to decide their appeal. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 854 (9th Cir.2003) (lack of jurisdiction to review merits of a discretionary hardship decision precludes jurisdiction to evaluate whether streamlining regulation was appropriately applied). We do not consider Gonzalez-Villanueva’s contention regarding physical presence because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Gerald L. WHITTINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-7235.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Gerald L. Whittington, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald L. Whittington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whittington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### Robert GUICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-16089.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.

Filed Dec. 20, 2007.

Robert Guichard, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward A. Ruttenberg, Esq., Leopold Petrich & Smith, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Guichard (Guichard) appeals the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. This court’s review is therefore “limited and deferential.” *Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise,*490 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted).

The district court’s conclusion that Guichard’s web presence at whisperoftheblue.com was not a use in commerce suf*16ficient to create a protectable trademark interest is consistent with our precedent. *See Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t*Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). Because Guichard had no protectable trademark interest, no infringement occurred. Similarly, as Guichard is suing with respect to his website, not a motion picture, he cannot demonstrate that the Title Registration Bureau of the Motion Picture Association of America has caused him any antitrust injury. Accordingly, no viable cause of action under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 could be sustained. *See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,*266 F.3d 979, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that such a claim requires one to demonstrate engagement in an unlawful or unfair business practice). As Guichard demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction motion. *See Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc.,*497 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Finally, the district court adequately articulated its findings. *See FTC v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc.,*362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that no reversal is required as long as “a full understanding” of the issue is possible).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
----

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

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing General Partner of                             |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                    |
| May 14, 2010                                            |
|                                                    |
|                                                    |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing General Partner of                             |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                    |
| May 14, 2010                                            |
Exhibit 4.173




Exhibit 4.173






ASSIGNMENT OF GEOTHERMAL LEASE AGREEMENT


This Assignment of Geothermal Lease Agreement #189093 ("Assignment") is executed and delivered effective as of May 6, 2011, by and between RLF Nevada Properties, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Assignor") and Blue Mountain Research & Development LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Assignee”).


Assignor has on this date conveyed to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to certain real property located in Humboldt County, Nevada, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property").


FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


Assignment. Assignor hereby conveys, assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee all of its right, title and interest in and to that certain Geothermal Lease Agreement #189093, dated March 31, 2003, by and between RLF Nevada Properties, LLC, successor in interest to Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC, a limited liability company and NGP Blue Mountain I LLC, successor in interest to Nevada Geothermal Power Company, successor in interest to Noramex Corporation, a Nevada Corporation.


Assumption. Assignee hereby accepts such assignment and assumes all liabilities, and agrees to perform all duties and obligations of Assignor under the Geothermal Lease # 189093 arising or accruing from and after the date hereof.


IN WITNESSTNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have caused this Assignment and Assumption Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date first above written.


ASSIGNOR:
RLF Nevada Properties LLC
A Colorado limited company
By: /s/ James W Geisz
Title: Authorized Representative


ASSIGNEE:
Blue Mountain Research & Development LLC
By: /s/ John H. Snow
Title: Managing Member



 


 













			
	STATE OF COLORADO	)	
	 	) 	ss.
	COUNTY OF EL PASO	)	




 


This instrument was acknowledged before me on 12 May, 2011 by James W. Geisz its Authorized Representative of and for Nevada Properties, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company






 













Exhibit A


The portion of Geothermal Lease Agreement that pertains to the section described below:


All of Section 13, Township 36 North, Range 34 East, MDB&E lying in Humboldt County, Nevada containing approximately 640.00 acres.
#### M. Rudolph PREUSS, as trustee in bankruptcy of Crosby Teletronics Corporation, Bankrupt, Plaintiff, v. John J. TODD, Jr., as Indenture Trustee, under Indenture of Trust with Crosby Teletronics Corporation, issuer, dated as of June 30, 1961, Defendant.

No. 62-C-1143.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Jan. 4, 1963.

*585Weinstein & Levinson, by Samuel Weinstein, New York City, for defendant.

Irving Schneider & Schwartz & Duberstein, by Joseph Simon, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

ZAVATT, Chief Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant for an order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e), directing the plaintiff to serve a more definite statement of the allegations of certain paragraphs of the complaint. Defendant does not contend that he is unable to answer the complaint but states that he desires more definite information so that he may obtain a speedier trial. He seeks to use Rule 12(e) as a means to avoid discovery under Rules 26 to 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In effect, he seeks a bill of particulars under Rule 12(e) as it existed prior to the amendment of 1946.

As enacted in 1937, Rule 12(e) authorized a motion for a bill of particulars which then became a part of the pleading it supplemented. 2 Moore, Federal Practice 2278 (2d ed. 1961), Abel v. Munro, 27 F.Supp. 346 (E.D.N.Y.1939). It soon became apparent that Rule 12(e) was being used to obtain information obtainable under Rules 26 to 37 and that the use of Rule 12(e) to supplement pleadings nullified the salutary mandate of Rule 8 which requires that pleadings be short, and the allegations thereof simple, concise and direct. Trial courts denied such motions under Rule 12(e) upon the ground that the desired information should be sought under the discovery rules. Bicknell v. Lloyd-Smith, 25 F.Supp. 657 (E.D.N.Y. 1938) ; Coca-Cola Co. v. Marbert Products, Inc., 29 F.Supp. 898 (E.D.N.Y. 1939) ; Tully v. Howard, 27 F.Supp. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1939). As originally drawn, Rule 12(e) was the subject of criticism by commentators, judges and members of the bar. At the June 1940 Second Circuit Conference of Circuit and District judges, the abolition of the bill of particulars was recommended. The Advisory Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference recommended and the Supreme Court promulgated an amendment in 1946 which struck from Rule 12(e) any reference to the bill of particulars. 2 Moore, Federal Practice 2215 (2d ed. 1961).

The defendant’s motion is denied. Settle an order on or before ten days from the date hereof.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Raymond GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10131.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Glenn B. McCormick, Esq, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*55Carmen L. Fischer, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *55R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roger Raymond Gonzalez appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez contends that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did take into account the appropriate sentencing factors and that the ultimate sentence imposed is not unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Cite as State v. Rippey , 2016-Ohio-7361.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-01-021

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 10/17/2016 : DESHAWN DAJUAN RIPPEY, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2015-07-1023

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appelleeScott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, OH 45011, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Deshawn Rippey, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, which (1)Butler CA2016-01-021

- 2 - indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21

              SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE OF THE COMPANY


As of March 31, 2006, the Company discloses its position of ownership of
the following entities:



                                           Charter/Joint Venture
Included in the                            ---------------------
Consolidated Statements    % Ownership       Place         Date
-------------------------  -----------       -----         ----
Homespan Realty Co., Inc.
 ("Homespan")                  100.0       Wisconsin     02/12/1959
Ecomm Group Inc.
 ("Ecomm")                     100.0       Wisconsin     06/24/1974
San Luis Estates, Inc.
 ("SLE")                       100.0       Colorado      11/09/1970
San Sebastian Gold Mines,
 Inc. ("Sanseb")                82.5       Nevada        09/04/1968
Universal Developers, Inc.
 ("UDI")                       100.0       Wisconsin     09/28/1964
Commerce/Sanseb Joint
 Venture ("Joint Venture")      90.0       Wisconsin &   09/22/1987
                                           El Salvador

Not included in the
Consolidated Statements
--------------------------
Mineral San Sebastian,
 S.A. de C.V.  ("Misanse")      52.0       El Salvador   05/08/1960
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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
      Corporation.

Date: July 29, 2004                           /s/  Steven C. Futrell
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Steven C. Futrell, President & CEO



* This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as otherwise stated in such filing.

                                       34
|WELLS
FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334
|----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
|------------------------------



|Reference is hereby made to
that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013,
by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION II, as Depositor, WELLS
FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC,
as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Operating
Advisor and US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Certificate Administrator and
Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through GSMS
Certificates Series 2013-GC13 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the
Agreement.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Pursuant
to Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice
President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|1. A review of the activities
of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2013 through
December 31, 2013 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per
the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 7th day of March 2014.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









| | /s/ Daniel Bober                                      
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| | Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank
**EXHIBIT 10.4****AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into this8th day of August, 2005, by and between OrthoLogic Corp., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”) and James M. Pusey (“Executive”) and amends the Employment Agreementdated as of March 3, 2005 between the Company and Executive (the “Employment Agreement”).     The Employment Agreement is hereby modified and amended as follows:     1. Sale of Boston condominium. The payment provided for in Section 4(h)(ii)(4) of theEmployment Agreement in connection with the sale of Executive’s Boston condominium is hereby fixedat $50,000, the maximum amount payable under that provision, payable immediately to Executive.     2. Reimbursement of additional expenses. In addition to the reimbursements providedfor in Section 4(h) of the Employment Agreement, the Company shall pay Executive an additional$49,000 to reimburse Executive for other relocation and transition related expenses, payable uponrequest to Executive.     Except as expressly modified herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force andeffect. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms and provisions of theEmployment Agreement and the terms and provisions of this Amendment, the terms and provisions ofthis Amendment shall govern and control. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each ofwhich shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one andthe same instrument.     This Amendment No. 1 is executed as of the date first above written.   ORTHOLOGIC CORP. EXECUTIVE   /s/ Jock M. Holliman, III /s/ James M. Pusey   Jock M. Holliman, III Dr. James M. PuseyChairman of the Board