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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JOSE LUIS GUEVARA, AKA Andres Fierro Cantu, AKA Jose Andreas Lopez, AKA Jose Lopez, AKA Jose Andreas Ruiz,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 50024

D.C. No. 2:13

- cr

- 00639

- ABC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 27 , 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Guevara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 50

- month custodial sentence and three

- year term of supervised release imposed
following his guilty

- plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication a nd 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

DEC 28 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

On October 19, 2015, we issued an order affirming the judgment. United

States v. Guevara , 619 Fed. Appx. 648 (9th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). We re jected
Guevara’s argument that the district court erred in determining that California
Health & Safety Code § 11351 is divisible and subject to the modified categorical

approach, noting that Guevara’s argument was foreclosed by this court’s decision

in Uni ted States v. Torre

- Jiminez , 771 F.3d 1163 , 1167 (9th Cir. 2014).

In January 2016, Guevara filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the
Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded

to this court “for further consideration in light of ” the Court’s recent decision in

Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). Guevara v. United States , 136 S.
Ct. 2542 (2016).
On remand, we invited the parties to submit additional briefing address ing
the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis and this court’s decision in United States

v. Martinez

- Lopez , 864 F.3 d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). After the parties
submitted their briefing, a panel of this court held in United States v. Mu rillo

Alvarado
, 876 F.3d 1022 ( 9th Cir. 2017) that California Health and Safety Code

§ 11351 is divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach

.3

This court’s decision in Mu rillo

- Alvarado is controlling

. See In re Zermeno

Gomez , 86 8 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2017). Because Guevara’s challenge is

foreclosed by Mu rillo

-

Alvarado , the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quick-Med
      Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Nam H. Nguyen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify, pursuant Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      my
      knowledge:





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




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








Dated:
      November 14, 2006     /s/
      Nam H. Nguyen__


Nam
      H. Nguyen


Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Bob Bates, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, 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.




By: /s/ Bob BatesBob BatesCFOMarch 18, 2013
#### Robert L. TINDER, Petitioner, v. Sister Rose PAULA, SND, et al., Respondents.

Civ. A. No. 78-1307-C.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 13, 1979.

Robert W. Hagopian, Cambridge, Mass., for plaintiff.

Robert V. Greco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

CAFFREY, Chief Judge.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus purporting to be filed by a 14-year-old boy without the use of a parent or next friend as his representative for so doing. Respondents are the Chief Probation Officer at the Municipal Court of West Roxbury and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Petitioner alleges that he was adjudicated a delinquent in the *793Municipal Court by reason of having committed arson in violation of M.G.L. c. 266, § 127. After the finding of delinquency in Juvenile Court he was committed to the custody of the Youth Service Board for a term of three years, but the term was suspended and he was placed on probation for that period. He was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $2,250. He alleges that he is presently in the custody of the Chief Probation Officer of the Municipal Court of West Roxbury.

The matter came before the Court on respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioner has failed to exhaust available state remedies and on the further ground that petitioner has not sought herein to raise an issue of constitutional dimension.

The alleged constitutional issue sought to be relied on by plaintiff is the failure of the Commonwealth to introduce evidence sufficient to establish the essential elements of the crime charged.

Appellant concededly elected not to take an appeal for a trial *de novo*under available Massachusetts procedure and argues that he did not take an appeal from the adjudication of delinquency because if a retrial were ordered subjecting him to same it would violate the principles of the double jeopardy clause.

I rule that petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy is frivolous particularly since his attorney was the attorney of record in *Ludwig v. Massachusetts,*427 U.S. 618, 96 S.Ct. 2781, 49 L.Ed.2d 732 (1976) and in *Costarelli v. Massachusetts,*421 U.S. 193, 95 S.Ct. 1534, 44 L.Ed.2d 76 (1975). In *Ludwig*the Supreme Court expressly rejected the contention that the Massachusetts *de novo*procedure violated the double jeopardy clause. *Ludwig v. Massachusetts, supra*at 630-31, 96 S.Ct. 2781.

 It is clear and, in fact, conceded by petitioner that he has not exhausted available state remedies, and it is equally clear and indeed hornbook law that until those remedies are exhausted this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a state prisoner’s petition for a habeas corpus. Lastly, it should be noted that the sufficiency of evidence is a question of state law which does not rise to constitutional dimensions. *United States ex rel. Griffin v. Martin,*409 F.2d 1300, 1302 (2d Cir. 1969); *Williams v. Wainwright,*414 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1969); *United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Maroney,*397 F.2d 724 (3d Cir. 1968).

Consequently, an Order will enter dismissing the petition.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), James M. McCluney, Chief Executive Officer of
Vixel Corporation (the "Company"), and Kurtis L. Adams, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

      1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three- and
            six-month periods ended June 29, 2003, and to which this
            Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC REPORT")
            fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

      2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of
            June 29, 2003 and the results of its operations for the three- and
            six-month periods then ended.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 13th
day of August, 2003.

                                                   /s/ James M. McCluney
     ------------------------              -------------------------------------
                                                     James M. McCluney
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                                    /s/ Kurtis L. Adams
     ------------------------              -------------------------------------
                                                      Kurtis L. Adams
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,588-01

EX P ARTE F RANZ WA DUVA R MILLER, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W09-40846-J(A ) IN CRIM INAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ca pital murder and sentenc ed to imprisonment for life. The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Miller

v. State , No. 05-10-01086- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug
. 10, 2012) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant conten d s , am ong other thi ng s, that trial counsel render ed ineffec tive assistance
. On April 16, 2014, the trial court e ntere d a timely order desig natingissues. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, mi gh t en t i t le him to relief
. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex2

parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to App l i ca n t ’s cl aim s of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appr opriate c ase, the trial court may rely on its personal re collection. Id
. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hearing , it shall deter mine whether Applican t is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent him at the hea ring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in response to Applicant’s claims. The trial court shall also make any other fi n d i n gs o f fa ct and conclusions of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claims for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court. Filed: January

14, 2015 Do not publish
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP




The Board of Directors
Florsheim Group Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated March 21, 2000, on the consolidated
balance sheets of Florsheim Group Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 2, 1999
and January 1, 2000, the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income, cash flows, and shareholders' equity for the years ended
January 3, 1998, January 2, 1999, and January 1, 2000 and related financial
statement schedule, which is included in the January 1, 2000 annual report on
Form 10-K of Florsheim Group Inc.





KPMG LLP
March 29, 2000
Exhibit 31.1
                                  ------------

I, Steve Careaga, CEO of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Reality Wireless
Networks, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:  August 29, 2005                    /s/ Steve Careaga
                                           ----------------------
                                           Its:  Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Principal Financial Officer/Acting
                                           Chief Financial Officer, Director
Exhibit 10.35


 


SUBLEASE AGREEMENT


This is an agreement to sublet office
space located at 4700 Spring Street, Suite 304, La Mesa, California 91942 according to the terms specified below.


 


The sublessor agrees to sublet and
the subtenant agrees to take the premises described below. Both parties agree to keep, perform and fulfill the promises, conditions
and agreements below:


 


1. The sublessor is: Entest Biomedical,
Inc.


 


2. The subtenant is: Regen Biopharma,
Inc.


 


3. The term of this sublease is month
to month beginning October 1, 2014.


 


4. The rent payable to the sublessor
by the subtenant is equal to the rent payable to the lessor by the sublessor and is to be paid in at such time specified in accordance
with the original lease agreement between the sublessor and the lessor.


 


5. All charges for utilities connected
with premises which are to be paid by the sublessor under the master lease shall be paid by the subtenant for the term of this
sublease.


 


6. Subtenant agrees to surrender and
deliver to the sublessor the premises and all furniture and decorations within the premises in as good a condition as they were
at the beginning of the term, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The subtenant will be liable to the sublessor for any damages
occurring to the premises or the contents thereof or to the building which are done by the subtenant.


 


7. In the event of any legal action
concerning this sublease, the losing party shall pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to
be fixed by the court wherein such judgment shall be entered.


 


The parties hereby bind themselves
to this agreement by their signatures affixed below on this First Day of October , 2014.


 


	Entest Biomedical, Inc.	Regen Biopharma Inc.
	By:/s/David Koos	By:/s/ David Koos
	President	President
EXHIBIT 32.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Sokol,  Chief  Executive  Officer of MidAmerican  Funding,  LLC (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period
          ended  December  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  March 3, 2004




                               /s/ David L. Sokol
                               -----------------------
                                   David L. Sokol
                               Chief Executive Officer
---



Exhibit 12

GUSTAVSON ASSOCIATES, LLC

5757 Central Avenue, Suite D, Boulder, Colorado 80301

Telephone: 303-443-2209

Facsimile: 303-443-3156



CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 10, 2009

British Columbia Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission

Manitoba Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

New Brunswick Securities Commission

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

Registrar of Securities, Prince Edward Island

Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador

Registrar of Securities, Northwest Territories

Registrar of Securities, Nunavut

Registrar of Securities, Yukon

United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Re:

Annual Information Form dated March 10, 2009 (the Annual Information Form) of Minefinders Corporation Inc. (the Company).



We refer to our report entitled "NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Minable Reserve for the Dolores Gold-Silver Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico" dated March 25, 2008 (the "Report") as referenced in the Annual Information Form and documents incorporated by reference therein.



We hereby consent to the use of our firm name and our report in the Annual Information Form and in documents incorporated by reference therein.



We confirm that we have read the Annual Information Form and we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations that are derived from our Report referred to above or that are within our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such Report.



We confirm that we have read the Annual Information Form and we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations that are derived from our Report referred to above or that are within our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such Report

|                                      |       |                      |                 
|------------------------------------- | ----- | -------------------- | ----------------
|Yours truly,GUSTAVSON ASSOCIATES, LLC
|                                     
|                                      | Per : | /s/ William J. Crowl
|                                      |       | Name:                | William J. Crowl
|                                      |       | Position:            | Vice President  





---
ex10-6b.htm


Exhibit 10.6(b)





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  




 





 




  





4











  






 




 





 




  





5











  






 









  





6











  






 





7
**Exhibit 10.58**July 18, 2005Elizabeth TrianaDear Elizabeth,**RE: Employee Share Incentive Plan and Employee Share Option Plan**In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan (“the Preference Share Plan”), you are herebyadvised that the Grant Date is July 14, 2005 for benefits you have accrued during the year ended 31December 2004.Accordingly you are granted 68 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the option to purchasean equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$18.31 or CI$15.26 each, which has beencalculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise thisoption, then payment must be received in full no later than the close of business on **August 15,2005**.As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan (“the Option Plan”), you will also be granted, as ofJuly 14, 2005, the option to purchase 340 Ordinary Shares in the Company. These options areexercisable in accordance to the terms of the Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity toobtain an equal amount of options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to theterms of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional PreferenceShares before **August 15, 2005**.Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful year forConsolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.Yours sincerely,