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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND NICHOLS; DANIEL

NICHOLS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE; DANIEL

MACIAS; MICHAEL FOSTER, 

Defendants-Appellants,

 and

STEPHANIE WYSINGER;

COMMUNITY CARE RAHAB CENTER,

LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company,

Defendants.

No. 18-55135

D.C. No. 

5:14-cv-00364-JGB-SP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 15, 2019

Pasadena, California

FILED

AUG 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,

** District

Judge.

 

Defendants, City of Riverside police officers Daniel Macias and Michael

Foster, appeal the district court’s order denying summary judgment on qualified

immunity. Plaintiffs Raymond and Daniel Nichols were arrested for allegedly

stealing an air mattress that they had rented on behalf of their mother. They were

released from jail the following day, and no charges were filed. We previously

held that these officers lacked probable cause to arrest the brothers. Nichols v.

Macias, 695 F. App’x 291, 292–93 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision). The

only issue here is whether it was reasonable for Defendants to believe that there

was probable cause so as to receive immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. Rosenbaum

v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 

We have held that the existence of a dispute over the amount of a bill or the

right to possess are civil in nature and ordinarily do not give rise to probable cause

to arrest. Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880, 883–84 (9th Cir. 2002); Allen v. City of

Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1996); Kennedy v. L.A. Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

702, 706 (9th Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by Act Up!/Portland v.

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 872–73 (9th Cir.1993). This was such a dispute. As noted,

** The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

2
the officers lacked probable cause. Raymond and Daniel told the police officers

that they had rented the mattress, and they produced the rental receipt and

agreement for the officers’ review. The only dispute was whether the brothers

could move that mattress before delivery of a new one. The district court therefore

properly held that Defendants were not entitled to immunity because the law was

clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs’ arrest in 2013.

AFFIRMED. 

3
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
  Name of Entity
    
    State or Country of OrganizationMitcham Canada Ltd.
    
    Alberta, CanadaAbsolute Equipment Solutions, Inc.
    
    Albert, CanadaSeismic Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaSeamap International Holdings Pte Ltd.
    
    SingaporeSeamap Inc.
    
    TexasSeamap (UK) Ltd.
    
    United KingdomSeamap Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeMitcham Seismic Eurasia LLC
    
    RussiaMongo Ltd.
    
    CyprusDrilling Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50637

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TONY EDWARD POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CR-004-ALL

_________________________________________________________________

April 22, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Edward Powell appeals his conviction for possession of

crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He argues that the scope

of his consent to search his vehicle for drugs or weapons did not

extend under the hood of the vehicle, and that the evidence at

trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Since the

officer indicated that he wished to search for drugs or weapons,

and since it is objectively reasonable to infer from consent to
-2-

such a search that the area under the hood is not excluded, the

search did not exceed the scope of the consent. See United States

v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct.

199 (1995); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 506-07 (5th Cir.

1993). Powell’s failure to limit the scope of his consent to

exclude the area under the hood further supports the legality of

the search. Id.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, it does not appear that a manifest miscarriage of

justice has occurred. The record is not devoid of evidence that

Powell knowingly possessed crack cocaine with the intent to

distribute it. See United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th

Cir. 1993); United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir.

1992) (en banc).

A F F I R M E D.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t a bl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E L E N O C O L I N F E L I C I A N O , A K A E l e no C ol i n, A K A D us t i n C ol i n A K A V i c t or C ol i n, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50025 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 6 5 5 - AH M ME MOR AN DU M *

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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia A . H ow a r d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i t t e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an d T A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

### Eleno Colin Feliciano appeals fr om the 64-monthsentence im posed following his guilty -plea conviction for being a felon in po ssessio n of a fir earm 

# FI LED DE C 14 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA H / Res ea r ch 09- 50025



### an d am m uni tio n invio latio n of

28 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). W e have j urisd ic tio n p ur s u antt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f f i r m. Fe lic iano c ont en ds that hi s mid- range Guid el ine s se nte nc e is s ubst antiv el y unr ea sona

ble be ca use : ( 1) thedis tric t c ourt ov er state d th e se ri ousn es s of the offense, (2) the district court ignored mitigatin g personal inform ation and focused on r ec idi vis m , and ( 3) the64- month se nte nc e is gre at er than ne ce ssary

to co m ply w iththese nte nc ingpur

pose s se t f

orth i n 18 U . S. C § 355 3. The r ecord re flects that the district court properly we ighed and con sidered th e se ct io n 3 55 3 fa ct or s. See U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 2 - 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) . 

### Unde r the c ir cum stanc es of thi s c as e, thedis tric t c ourt di d not abuseit s di sc re tio n inim posi ng a mid- range Guid el ine s se nte nc e, and the sentence is not substantiv ely unreasonable. Id . a t 9 9 3 - 9 4 ; U ni t ed St at es v. R in g g o ld , 5 7 1 F .3 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( u p h o ld in g th e d istrict co u rt’s se nt ence and d et er m i nat i on thatappel l ant ’ s pri or i m pri sonm ent“ has notm ade a si gn i fi ca nti m pactup on hi m ”) . AF F I RME D.
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 TMI Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Siegel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: June 17, 2003
 
 
 /s/ Scott Siegel________________
 Scott Siegel
 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TMI Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by TMI Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2913 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 

Simonton Street in Key West, Florida, as the ‘‘Sidney 

M. Aronovitz United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2913 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 301 

3 Simonton Street in Key West, Florida, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 

5 Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Sidney M. Aronovitz United 

11 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2913 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

house’’. the ‘‘Sidney M. Aronovitz United States Courtat 301 Simonton Street in Key West, Florida, as
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2632 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2632

 To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the 
  flag of the United States on National Korean War Veterans Armistice 
                                  Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2009

 Mr. Rangel (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
   Mr. Conyers, Ms. Watson, and Mr. King of New York) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the 
  flag of the United States on National Korean War Veterans Armistice 
                                  Day.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Korean War Veterans Recognition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAG ON NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VETERANS ARMISTICE DAY.

    Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, July 27;'' 
after ``July 4;''.
                                 <all>
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
First American Railways, Inc.


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of First American Railways,  Inc. (the "Company"),  of our
report dated January 14, 1997,  except for Note 13, paragraph 1 as it relates to
the terms of the  acquisition  of the Durango & Silverton  Narrow Gauge Railroad
Company,  which is as of March 13, 1997, relating to the financial statements of
the Company,  appearing in the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                           /S/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                                           ---------------------
                                                           BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                               
Miami, Florida
April 13, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,504)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,631
<PP&E>                                          49,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,277)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,613
<BONDS>                                        115,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           41,492
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         6,381
<OTHER-SE>                                    (85,799)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,375
<SALES>                                         86,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,334
<CGS>                                           72,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,345)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (59,674)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of A.S.V., Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas R. Karges, Chief Financial 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

                                        /s/ Thomas R. Karges
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Thomas R. Karges
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        March 11, 2005




                                      E-8
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONGCAI LI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50057.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Wesley Liu Hsu, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Yongcai Li, Post, TX, pro se.

Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Kenneth M. Stern Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yongcai Li appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for trafficking in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Li’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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

EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of PRI Automation, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-90702,
33-90726, 33-90732, 333-3408, 333-25217, 333-41067, 333-45063 and 333-74141)
and Form S-3 (File Numbers 333-69721, 333-64519 and 333-42167), of our report
dated November 15, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of PRI Automation, Inc. as of
September 30, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the three years in the period
ended September 30, 1999, which report is included in the Company's 1999
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                           PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 20, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.2
                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of Anza Capital, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent
Rinehart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


Dated:  September 13, 2005              /s/ Vincent Rinehart
                                        -------------------------
                                   By:  Vincent Rinehart
                                   Its: Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anza Capital, Inc. and will be retained by Anza Capital, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00 346 -CR Da vid Le e Ra e tz sc h , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-08 -20 1943 , HO NORAB LE JIM CORO NADO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Ap p e ll an t D av id

L e e Ra e tz s c hh a s f

il e d a p r o s e M o ti o nto Wi th dr awN o ti c e of Ap pe a l. We g ra

nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s th is a

pp e a l.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: June 19, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,533,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,016,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   416,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,879,000
<PP&E>                                      20,782,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,346,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,507,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,040,000
<BONDS>                                     73,983,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,632,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,507,000
<SALES>                                     50,915,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,915,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,190,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,927,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,101,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,303,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,403,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,403,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.23)


</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-13-00127-CR OFFENSE: 25.02

Lewis Michael Wall v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Collin

IZZI-/V

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 219th Judicial District Court

DATE: 8/11/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 219-80388-2011

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Lewis Michael Wall v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPELLj\MT^ Petition

CCA, f****/tf

CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

ftfu^ec/ JUDGE:

DATE: y&y> / A/ 2^/iT

JUDGE: /^

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD