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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL RIVERA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

STEVE LANGFORD, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-55445 

D.C. No. 

2:18-cv-05596-JLS-GJS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and PARKER,** Circuit Judges.

Angel Rivera appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, filed 

to restore good time credit lost after a disciplinary hearing. The parties are familiar 

with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the district court.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge 

for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, review for 

clear error underlying factual findings, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 

2015), and defer to the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer if “some 

evidence” supports the determination, Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole 

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

Due process in a prison disciplinary hearing which may result in the loss of 

good time credits requires that a prisoner have the opportunity to call witnesses if 

doing so does not imperil “institutional safety or correctional goals.” See Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Rivera asserts he was not permitted to do 

so, but does not dispute that his signature appears on hearing forms indicating he 

did not wish to call witnesses on his behalf. These forms, viewed with the 

“presumption of regularity,” see Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir. 

2015), foreclose this argument. 

A prison disciplinary decision need only be “supported by some evidence in 

the record.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. Rivera’s contention that the disciplinary 

decision relied on “a curated selection” of evidence, implicitly admits the existence 

of evidence supporting the decision. The record contains evidence that Rivera was 

in the mop closet immediately before the phone was discovered, that he was 

standing on a mop bucket so as to be able to reach the smoke detector where the 

phone was found, that he attempted to barricade himself in the closet and conceal 
3 

his activities, and that he admitted to being in the closet to wire a cellphone charger 

next to the area where the phone was found. Consequently, “the government 

[introduced] ‘some evidence tying the defendant to the particular contraband.’” 

United States v. Duenas, 691 F.3d 1070, 1084 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                    THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

          EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

THE FOLLOWING TABLE PRESENTS THE COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSSES PER
SHARE:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED              SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                       ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                        JUNE 25,         JUNE 27,       JUNE 25,        JUNE 27,
                                                          2000             1999           2000            1999
                                                       -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>
          Numerator:
     Net (loss)                                        $  (700,267)    $   (75,073)    $  (960,281)    $  (138,213)
                                                       -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
          Denominator:
     Denominator for basic loss per
     share--weighted-average shares                      2,497,210       2,185,700       2,430,781       2,185,700

     Effect of dilutive securities:
       Stock options                                            --         523,776              --         523,776

     Denominator for diluted loss per share              2,497,210       2,709,476       2,430,781       2,709,476
                                                       ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
                (Loss) per share:
     Basic                                             $     (0.28)    $     (0.03)    $     (0.40)    $     (0.06)
                                                       ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

     Diluted                                           $     (0.28)    $     (0.03)    $     (0.40)    $     (0.05)
                                                       ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT J O SEPH P. BEC K ER , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. M IC H A E L M A R T E L , W ard en , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 55527 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 5 7 6 - J M - PCL ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e yT . M i l l e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e bruary8, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : KOZ I NS KI , C h ie f Ju d g e , HA W KI NS a nd FI SH ER , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A l though the s e nt e nc i ng j udge vi ol a t e d c l e ar l ye s t abl i s he d f e de r a l l aw by i m po si ng an up per t erm se nt ence base d o n B ec ker’ s “ l engthy re cord, ” s ee C u n n i n g h am v . C al i fo rn i a, 5 4 9 U . S . 2 7 0 , 2 8 8

– 9 3 (2 0 0 7 ), th e erro r w as h arm l ess because w e have no “grave do ub t ” thata j ury w ou l d’ ve al so foun d B ec ker’ s r ec ord 

# FI LED FEB 16 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSpage 2

“ l e ngthy ” gi ve n hi s num e r ous pr i orc onvi c t i ons , s e e B ut l e rv. C urry , 528 F . 3d 624, 64 8 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). AF F I RME D.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00652-CR

John Tracy Josey, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 51981, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

John Tracy Josey seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for possession of

methamphetamine. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Josey has no right

of appeal, and also thatJosey waived hisright of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal

is dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 4, 2003

Do Not Publish
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46413

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MICHAEL DAVID MURPHY ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 8, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion to correct illegal sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM Michael David Murphy pleaded guilty to three counts of rape , Idaho Code § 18

- 6101, and one count of robbery , I.C. § 18

- 6501 . The district court imposed a concurrent life sentence, with forty years determinate, for each count

. In 2018, Murphy filed a second I.C.R. 35 motion for correction of an illegal sentence, asserting that his sentence i s illegal because his due proc es s right was violated because exculpatory evidence of mental health and brain development was not presente d to the district court prior to his sentencing and because his trial counsel did not not ify Murphy that he did not2 have to participate in the presen tence investigation process. The district court denied Murphy ’s motion, finding that Murphy ’s sentence i s not illegal. Murphy appeals.

In State v. Clements , 148 Idaho 82, 87, 218 P.3d 1143, 1148 (2009), the Idaho Supreme
Court held that the term “i llegal sentence” under Rule 35 is narrowly interpreted as a sentence that is illegal from the face of the record, i.e., does not involve significant questions of fact or require an evidentiary hearing. Rule 35 is a “narrow rule,” and because an illegal se ntence may be corrected at any time, the authority conferred by Rule 35 should be limited to uphold the finality of judgments. State v. Farwell, 144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007). Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is not a vehicle designed to reexamine t he facts underlying the case to determine whether a sentence is illegal; rather, the rule only applies to a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law or where new
evidence tends to show that the o riginal sentence was excessive. Clements , 148 Idaho at 87, 218
P.3d at 1148. The record supports the district court’s finding that Murphy ’s sentence i s not illegal. Therefore, the district court properly denied Murphy ’s motion. Accordingly, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown and the district court’s order denying Murphy ’s I.C.R. 35

motion is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 of The Majestic Star Casino,
LLC and Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Registrant") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon S. Bennett,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp., 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) 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
Registrant.

By: /s/ Jon S. Bennett
    --------------------------------------------
    Jon S. Bennett, Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star
    Casino, LLC and Majestic Star Casino
    Capital Corp.
    November 13, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         55,140
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                   19,389
<INVENTORY>                                    367,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         134,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,087,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        478,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       360
<OTHER-SE>                                     212,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,087,909
<SALES>                                        81,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               98,132
<CGS>                                          20,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  69,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               35,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,154)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.43)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                        

We have issued our reports dated February 17, 1999, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
A.S.V., Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of A.S.V., Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-94248, effective June 30,
1995, File No. 33-94250, effective July 3, 1995, File No. 33-43075, effective
December 23, 1997, File No. 33-64291 effective September 25, 1998).



                                                              GRANT THORNTON LLP
                                                                                


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 22, 1999
IB 

Union Calendar No. 309 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3263 

[Report No. 112–442] 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance 

of nonproject water at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2011 

Mr. COLE (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3263 RH

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of nonproject water at the Norman 

project in Oklahoma, and for other purposes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3263 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Thunderbird Ef5 ficient Use Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NORMAN PROJECT, OKLAHOMA. 

7 Public Law 86–529 (74 Stat. 225) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 10. LAKE THUNDERBIRD. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Interior 

11 determines that there is enough excess capacity in the res12 ervoir on the Little River known as ‘Lake Thunderbird’ 

13 that nonproject water can be stored in Lake Thunderbird, 

14 the Secretary of the Interior may, in accordance with the 

15 reclamation laws, amend an existing contract, or enter 

16 into 1 or more new contracts, with the Central Oklahoma 

17 Master Conservancy District for the storage and convey18 ance of nonproject water in Norman project facilities to 

19 augment municipal and industrial supplies for the cities 

20 served by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dis21 trict. 

22 ‘‘(b) COSTS.—If any additional infrastructure is 

23 needed to enable the storage and conveyance of non24 project water in Norman project facilities under sub25 section (a) or any other provision of this Act, the costs 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 3263 RH

1 of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastruc2 ture shall be the responsibility of the non-Federal entity 

3 contracting with the Secretary of the Interior for storage 

4 and conveyance rights.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECT. 

6 Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this 

7 Act authorizes any expansion of the storage capacity of 

8 Lake Thunderbird. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 309 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3263 

[Report No. 112–442] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

other purposes. at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and for the storage and conveyance of nonproject water 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 276 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to convene a task force to develop recommendations on the proper disposal 

of unused pharmaceuticals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to convene a task force to develop recommendations on the proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Free Water Act 

5 of 2009’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 276 IH

1 SEC. 2. TASK FORCE ON PROPER DISPOSAL OF UNUSED 

2 PHARMACEUTICALS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the national 

4 goals and policies set forth in section 101 of the Federal 

5 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), the Ad6 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (in 

7 this Act referred to as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall convene 

8 a task force (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘task force’’) 

9 to develop— 

10 (1) recommendations on the proper disposal of 

11 unused pharmaceuticals by consumers, health care 

12 providers, and others, which recommendations 

13 shall— 

14 (A) be calculated to prevent or reduce the 

15 detrimental effects on the environment and 

16 human health caused by introducing unused 

17 pharmaceuticals, directly or indirectly, into 

18 water systems; and 

19 (B) provide for limiting the disposal of un20 used pharmaceuticals through treatment works 

21 in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution 

22 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and 

23 (2) a strategy for the Federal Government to 

24 educate the public on such recommendations. 

25 (b) MEMBERSHIP.—The task force shall be composed 

26 of— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 276 IH

1 (1) the Administrator (or the Administrator’s 

2 designee), who shall serve as the Chair of the task 

3 force; 

4 (2) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (or 

5 the Commissioner’s designee); and 

6 (3) such other members as the Administrator 

7 may appoint. 

8 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

9 of the enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit 

10 a report to the Congress containing the recommendations 

11 and strategy required by subsection (a). 

12 (d) STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request 

13 of the task force, the head of any department or agency 

14 of the United States may detail any of the personnel of 

15 that department or agency to the task force to assist in 

16 carrying out its duties under this section. 

17 (e) TERMINATION.—The task force shall terminate 

18 180 days after submitting the report required by sub19 section (c). 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**











**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





To
      the
      Board of Directors and Shareholders


of
      The
      Savannah Bancorp, Inc.





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
      S-8
      (No.333-69175) of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 28,
      2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear in the
      Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 and our report dated February
      28,
      2006 on the Internal Controls over Financial Reporting which appears in Item
      9A
      of Form 10-K.





/s/
      BDO
      Seidman, LLP





Atlanta,
      Georgia


March
      13,
      2006
Exhibit 10.1


 





(English Translation)


 


SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT


 


THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, dated as of May
2, 2018, is made by and between Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited (“Party A” and formerly known as Yangtze
River Development Limited) and Fujian Yuesheng Industrial Development Limited (“Party B” and “Fujian
Yuesheng”) in Wuhan City, China:


 


WHEREAS, on December 26, 2017, Party A and
the eight shareholders, including Party B, of Wuhan Economic Development Port Co., Limited (incorporated in China, hereinafter
“Party B Target Company”) signed an Agreement in respect of Party A’s proposed acquisition of Party B Target
Company as well as Party B’s proposed acquisition of the equity in Energetic Mind Limited (incorporated in the British Virgin
Islands and held by Party A) (hereinafter the “Agreement”),


 


AND, Party A and Party B signed a Supplemental
Agreement on March 31, 2018 (hereinafter the “Supplemental Agreement”)


 


NOW, THEREFORE, Party A and Party B agree to
extend both the Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement to May 31, 2018.


 


THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT is in duplicate whereas Party A and
Party B each hold one. It shall take effect upon signing and affixing company seal by both parties and the Guarantor, and shall
have the same legal effect as the Agreement dated December 26, 2017 and the Supplemental Agreement dated March 31, 2018


 


 


Party A


Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited


Signed by CEO:


 


Party B: 


Fujian Yuesheng Industrial Development Limited
(with seal)


Signed by Legal Representative:


 


Guarantor of Party B:


Signed by Mr. Wang Kaiwei: