alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6368

RODNEY VARNADORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MACK JARVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-545-5-BO)

Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 8, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Ray Sparrow, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence

Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Varnadore seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Varnadore v. Jarvis, No. CA-97-545-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chauncey Wilkins, Also Known as CP, Also Known as Shanks, Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 364]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of *1039Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 3, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and thereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender to eight years in prison, followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, challenging only the propriety of having been sentenced as a second felony offender.

We affirm. Contrary to his contention, “ ‘County Court was not obligated to expressly advise defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of the prior conviction’ ” *(People v Wood,*108 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2013], quoting *People v Smith,*121 AD2d 771, 772 [1986]; *see People v Wallace,*188 AD2d 499, 500 [1992]; *People v West,*140 AD2d 852, 852 [1988]). Here, the record reveals that defendant was provided with the prior felony information before sentencing and, while represented by counsel during sentencing, declined to deny or controvert any of the allegations in the information. Accordingly, County Court substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (3), and defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender *(see People v Wood,*108 AD3d at 933).

Stein, J.P, McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20609 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO HUMBERTO GUERRERO-CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-14-1

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mario Humberto Guerrero-Cabrera appeals his conviction for reentering the United States without permission after deportation following an aggravated felony. Guerrero-Cabrera concedes that this court held that felony possession of a controlled substance is a drug-trafficking offense, and therefore is an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002).No. 02-20609 -2- Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Guerrero-Cabrera’s objection to the eight-level enhancement imposed for his prior felony conviction for possession of cocaine. Guerrero-Cabrera argues that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). This court must follow that decision until it is overruled by the Supreme Court. United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| (1)    | the                Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended                December 31, 2005 (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,              2006 |  /s/                Todd M. Raba    |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      | Todd                M. Raba              |   |
|                                                      | President                                |   |
|                                                      | (chief                executive officer) |   |

----
#### In the Matter of Larry R., Petitioner, v State of New York Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 782]

White, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Social Services which denied petitioner’s request to have his name expunged from the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.

On June 26, 1990, a report that petitioner had employed inappropriate behavior management techniques in subduing a 12-year-old patient at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center in St. Lawrence County was filed with the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (see, Social Services Law § 422 [2] [a]). Following notification that the report had been marked indicated, petitioner requested that it be expunged (see, Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [i]). At the conclusion of a predeprivation hearing conducted pursuant to Social Services Law § 422 (8) (b), the Administrative Law Judge denied expunction, finding that there was “some credible evidence” that petitioner had used an unauthorized and dangerous restraint. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

When we review an administrative determination we are limited to the grounds invoked by the agency and may not substitute what we consider a more adequate or proper basis *(see, Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*77 NY2d 753, 758; *Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman,*57 NY2d 588, 593). Therefore, as it is now firmly established that the standard of proof applicable at the subject predeprivation hearing is “by a fair preponderance of the evidence” *(Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling,*87 NY2d 699, 712), we must annul the challenged determination and remit this matter to respondent Commissioner of Social Services for a new determination on the original record using the appropriate standard of proof *(see, Matter of Nils TT. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*221 AD2d 874, *lv denied*87 NY2d 812; *Matter of Robert OO. v Dowling,*217 AD2d 785, *affd*87 NY2d 1043).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, with costs, and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2978 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the maximum age to 

qualify for coverage as a ‘‘child’’ under the health benefits program 

for Federal employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2009 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, 

Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. CONNOLLY of 

Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the maximum age to qualify for coverage as a ‘‘child’’ under 

the health benefits program for Federal employees. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AGE TO QUALIFY FOR 

4 COVERAGE AS A ‘‘CHILD’’. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8901(5) of title 5, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2978 IH

1 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

2 by striking ‘‘22 years of age’’ and inserting ‘‘25 

3 years of age’’; and 

4 (2) in the matter following subparagraph (B), 

5 by striking ‘‘age 22’’ and inserting ‘‘age 25’’. 

6 (b) SELF AND FAMILY COVERAGE FOR A FORMER

7 SPOUSE.—Section 8905(c)(2)(B) of title 5, United States 

8 Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘22 years of age’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘25 years of age’’; and 

11 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘age 22’’ and in12 serting ‘‘age 25’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act and the amend14 ments made by this Act— 

15 (1) shall take effect on the first day of the first 

16 contract year beginning at least 180 days after the 

17 date of the enactment of this Act; and 

18 (2) shall apply with respect to health care serv19 ices or supplies provided on or after the date on 

20 which this Act takes effect. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
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
 
 This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
 
 In connection with 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:
 
 (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:  May 17, 2010                                                                                                 /s/ Nam H. Nguyen
 Nam H. Nguyen
 Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2805 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2805

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 12-month 
            continuous coverage for children under Medicaid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2009

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 12-month 
            continuous coverage for children under Medicaid.

    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 ``Ensuring Continuous Medicaid 
Coverage for Children Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF 12-MONTH CONTINUOUS COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 
              MEDICAID.

    (a) In General.--Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                (72);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (73) and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (73) the following 
                new paragraph:
            ``(74) meet the requirement of subsection (e)(12).''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(12), by striking ``At the option of a 
        State, the plan may'' and inserting ``The State plan under this 
        title shall''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply to individuals who were 
determined eligible for medical assistance before, on, or after such 
date.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-85272, 33-94972, 333-87715,
333-39129, 333-41954, 333-54010, 333-59859, 333-63156, 333-100094, 333-113683, 333-119799, 333-128529, and 333-130419) and the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-111527 and 333-86072) of Mattson Technology, Inc. of our report dated
March 6, 2009, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
San Jose, California 
March 6, 2009

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ATE ARMAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71553

Agency No. A095-629-982

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Ate Arman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection

FILED

MAY 18 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71553

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Arman did not suffer

harm rising to the level of past persecution, and Arman cannot show that any harm

to his wife constituted “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” Arman himself. 

See id. at 1060 (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s finding that Arman failed to establish a clear probability of

future persecution, because he was unable to demonstrate a sufficiently

individualized risk of harm based upon his or his wife’s experiences in Indonesia. 

See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we

deny the petition as to Arman’s withholding of removal claim. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Arman did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

government officials, or with their acquiescence, if returned to Indonesia. See

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I would grant the petition for review.

FILED

MAY 18 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                              6,745
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                      57,890
<ALLOWANCES>                        1,154
<INVENTORY>                        54,568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    3,962
<PP&E>                            104,111
<DEPRECIATION>                     15,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    311,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             101,851
<BONDS>                           129,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                              315
<OTHER-SE>                         66,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      311,823
<SALES>                           315,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                             248,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     288,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 19,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,909
<INCOME-TAX>                        3,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 1,778
<DISCONTINUED>                     (4,136)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       (2,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.09
        


</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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 AT E AR MAN, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71553 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 629- 982 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A t e A rm a n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on 

# FI LED MA Y18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 71553 2 un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s , W

akkaryv. H older , 5 5 8 F . 3 d1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatA rm an di d n otsuff er harm ri si ng t o the l evel of pastpers ec ut i on , and A rm an cann otshow thatany harm to h is w if

e c o n s titu te d“ap a tte rn o f p e r s e c u tio n c lo s e lytie dto ” A rm a n h im s e lf . Se e id . at10 60 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). M oreover, subst ant i al evi dence s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tA rm a n f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h ac l e a rpr obabi l i tyof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , b e c au s e h e w a s u n ab le to d e m o n s tr a te as u f f ic ie n tly in d iv id u a liz e dr is ko f

h a rm b a s e du p o n h is o rh is w if e ’s e x p e r ie n c e s in I n d o n e s ia . Se e H o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 1 9 F . 3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yth e p e titio n a s to A rm a n ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im . S u b st an t i al ev i d en ce al so su p p o rt s th e ag en cy’ s d en i al o f C A T rel i ef b ecau se A rm a n di d notde m ons tr a t e tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nothe w oul d be t ortur e d by g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls , o rw ith th e ira c q u ie s c e n c e , if r e tu rn e dto I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1067- 68 . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D E N I E D .P R E G E R S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng:

I wo u l dg r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED MA Y18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
[No. 29871-0-III.

Division Three.

October 25, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ruben Zamora Jurado, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 10-1-00680-3, Vic L. VanderSchoor, J., entered April *27,2011.Affirmed in part*and *remanded with instructions*by unpublished opinion per

Kulik, J.,

concurred in by Sweeney and Brown, JJ.