alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., 

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 19-30289 

 20-30157

D.C. No. 4:02-cr-00052-DLC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

In Appeal No. 19-30289, Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals from the 

district court’s order denying his request for a recommendation to be placed in a 

residential reentry center (“RRC”). In Appeal No. 20-30157, Fourstar appeals

from the district court’s July 21, 2020, judgment revoking supervised release. We 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30289 & 20-30157

dismiss Appeal No. 19-30289 as moot. We have jurisdiction over Appeal No. 20-

30157 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In Appeal No. 19-30289, the sole issue presented is whether the district 

court abused its discretion in denying Fourstar’s request for a recommendation to 

be placed in an RRC for the remainder of his sentence. Because Fourstar has 

finished serving that sentence, we can provide no effective relief as to the claim 

raised, and we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14 

(1998). 

In Appeal No. 20-30157, Fourstar contends that the district court violated his 

due process right to confrontation by admitting hearsay evidence at his fifth 

revocation hearing without conducting the balancing test required by Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C). Reviewing de novo, we conclude that any 

error was harmless. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Fourstar does not contest the accuracy or reliability of the challenged documents, 

nor did he offer any contrary evidence. See United States v. Walker, 117 F.3d 417, 

420-21 (9th Cir. 1997).

1 Moreover, the district court’s decision to revoke 

supervised release is also supported by two additional violations that did not rely 

1 Fourstar urges us to overrule Walker and hold that the Federal Rules of Evidence 

apply at supervised release revocation proceedings. Even if we were inclined to do 

so, as a three-judge panel, we cannot. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-

900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
3 19-30289 & 20-30157

upon the challenged documents. See United States v. Daniel, 209 F.3d 1091, 1094 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“Supervised release can be revoked based upon only one 

violation.”).

APPEAL NO. 19-30289: DISMISSED.

APPEAL NO. 20-30157: AFFIRMED.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Securities
  Exchange Act Rules 
  13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, John R Gaetz. Chief Financial Officer of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarban-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge

| | (3) | the quarterly report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp for the period
      ended June 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (4) | the information contained in such quarterly report of UltraGuard Water
      Systems Corp for the period ended June 30, 2004 fairly represents, in all
      material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
      UltraGuard Water Systems Corp.

Date: August 14, 2004

/s/ J R Gaetz John R Gaetz 
  Chief Financial Officer

---
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1205

____________

STEPHEN TODD BOOKER, 

Petitioner,

vs.

JULIE L. JONES, etc., 

Respondent.

[January 30, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Todd Booker petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus 

seeking relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. 

Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State

(Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This 

Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.

This Court stayed Booker’s case pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 

State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this 
- 2 -

Court decided Hitchcock, Booker responded to this Court’s order to show cause 

arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Booker’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Booker is not entitled to relief. 

Booker was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of eight to four. Booker v. State, 773 So. 2d 1079, 1086 (Fla. 2001). 

Booker’s sentence of death became final in 2001. Booker v. Florida, 532 U.S. 

1033 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Booker’s sentence. See

Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we deny Booker’s petition.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Booker, we

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.

Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus, Alachua County,

Case No. 011977CF002332AXXXXX
- 3 -

Ann Finnell of Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami & Andux, P.A., Jacksonville, 

Florida; and Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal 

Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Respondent
The Honorable R.E. Longstaff, United States District Judge

1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3797

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa

Kathleen Monica Starnes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 3, 1997

 Filed: May 1, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Starnes appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa following her guilty plea 1

to conspiring to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The

district court sentenced Starnes to 25 months imprisonment. For the

reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We reject Starnes's contention that the district court clearly erred

in imposing a four-level aggravating-role enhancement for 
-2-

being an organizer of an extensive fraudulent scheme. See U.S.S.G. §

3B1.1(a) (1995) (court must increase defendant's offense level if she was

organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved five or more

participants or was otherwise extensive); United States v. Scott, 91 F.3d

1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Starnes was president of

a company for which investments were obtained fraudulently; she recruited

others to seek out investors; she made misrepresentations and caused others

to make misrepresentations knowingly and with the intent to defraud

investors; she participated in the scheme both directly and indirectly; and

investors lost more than $750,000.

As to Starnes's contention that enhancements for both role in the

offense and more than minimal planning constituted impermissible double

counting, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Willis, 997 F.2d

407, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1050 (1994).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,453,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,768,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,095,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,041,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,670,000
<PP&E>                                      47,131,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,245,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,169,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,486,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,859,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,169,000
<SALES>                                     55,616,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,616,000
<CGS>                                       32,614,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,614,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,410,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,505,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,087,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,114,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,973,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,973,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
Order entered August 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01286-CR

TROY NEAL HOOPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71997-R

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On July 21, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. On August 15, 2014, we received appellant’s brief, together with an 

extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the July 21, 

2014 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the August 15, 2014 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Pete's Brewing Company and Subsidiary on Form S-8 (File No. 333-1308) of our
report dated February 18, 1998, on our audits of the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Pete's Brewing Company and Subsidiary as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995 which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
San Jose, California
March 27, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


DYNAMEX INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
(In Thousands except Per Share Amounts)
(Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended     Three Months Ended
                                                         October 31,           October 31,
                                                    --------------------   -------------------
                                                                                Pro Forma
                                                      1995        1996       1995       1996
                                                    --------    --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                 <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>     
     Net Income (Loss)                              $    (63)   $    283   $    109   $    692
                                                    ========    ========   ========   ========

     Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding        2,543       5,235      5,706      5,857

     Common Shares Equivalents Related to Options
         and Warrants                                  1,189         718      1,189        727
                                                    --------    --------   --------   --------

     Common Shares and Common Share Equivalents        3,732       5,953      6,895      6,584
                                                    --------    --------   --------   --------

     Common Stock Price used under Treasury Stock
        Method                                      $   8.00    $  10.13   $   8.00   $  10.13
                                                    ========    ========   ========   ========

     Net Income (Loss) per Common Share             $  (0.02)   $   0.05   $   0.02   $   0.11
                                                    ========    ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>                
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K/A
OF BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,327
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,295
<INVENTORY>                                     11,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,421
<PP&E>                                          66,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  663,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           105,717
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,003
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      353,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    663,461
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                436,303
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   258,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 7,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                    5,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.22
        

</TABLE>
TRAVIS TUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-5247

Opinion filed December 9, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Travis Tucker, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Janec Baena SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Janec Baena Salgado, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 06-74946, 07-71301.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Judith Goodman, Goodman Immigration Law Firm, Roseville, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Janee Baena Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Ap*940peals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen which was based on petitioner’s additional evidence concerning his United States citizen son’s medical condition.

Petitioner contends that the IJ violated his due process rights by failing to *sua sponte*compel the testimony of petitioner’s ex-wife regarding hardship. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome of the proceedings, *see Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Petitioner also contends that the IJ erred by not properly considering the cumulative hardship effect of removal on his qualifying relatives, but we reject this contention where the IJ stated explicitly that he was considering the cumulative impact in finding no exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006)

The evidence that petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal, *see Fernandez,*at 602-03, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. *See id.*at 601.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*940ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                             FORM 10-Q/A


            		    AMENDMENT TO
             QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
              OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                FOR QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996


                  COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-20777


                XIONICS DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
      (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


DELAWARE                                                    04-3186685
(State or other jurisdiction of                          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)                          Identification No.)

70 BLANCHARD ROAD, BURLINGTON, MA                             01803
(Address of principal executive offices)                   (Zip Code)


                                 (617) 229-7000
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


                                      NONE
                    (Former name, former address and former
                   fiscal year, if changed since last report)




<PAGE>



              XIONICS DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                     INDEX

                                                                          PAGE
                                                                         NUMBER

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 6. Exhibits .......................................................   2

        Signatures......................................................   3



<PAGE>


ITEM 6.  EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

      (a)  Exhibits

		27   Financial Data Schedule





<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES


      PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, THE
REGISTRANT HAS DULY CAUSED THE REPORT TO BE SIGNED ON ITS BEHALF BY THE
UNDERSIGNED, THEREUNTO DULY AUTHORIZED.


                               XIONICS DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



NAME                                       TITLE                     DATE
----                                       -----                     ----
      /S/   ROBERT E. GILKES      Chairman of the Board of      APRIL 17, 1997
-----------------------------     Directors, Chief Executive
        Robert E. Gilkes          Officer, and President


     /S/  GERARD T. FEENEY
-----------------------------     
        GERARD T. FEENEY          Chief Financial Officer       APRIL 17, 1997