alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred BOTTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50616.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.

Filed Dec. 8, 2010.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Angela Sanneman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and JARVEY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Alfred Botta conditionally pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), while preserving his ability to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Botta contends that the police failed to comply with search warrant protocol that required an initial on-site review of his computer equipment and storage devices to determine whether they contained material depicting child pornography.

The district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress as it relates to the search of the computer. The search warrant protocol required an initial on-site review of computer equipment only if the review could be conducted in a reasonable amount of time and without jeopardizing the ability to preserve data as a condition to the seizure of the equipment. *United States v. Adjani,*452 F.3d 1140, 1149-50 *197(9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*549 U.S. 1025, 127 S.Ct. 568, 166 L.Ed.2d 420 (2006) (an on-site review is not always required). The computer forensic officer brought the equipment necessary for a typical on-site search but determined that an on-site search at Botta’s residence would take an unreasonable amount of time. *United States v. Hill,*459 F.3d 966, 975 (9th Cir.2006), ce*rt. denied,*549 U.S. 1299, 127 S.Ct. 1863, 167 L.Ed.2d 353 (2007) (on-site searches of personal computers are not always possible). Because the computer was unusually sophisticated and required additional “write block” equipment, the officer’s decision to seize Botta’s computer and conduct an off-site search was reasonable and complied with the warrant protocol. *See, e.g., United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc.,*621 F.3d 1162, 1171-72 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (per curiam) (finding no error in agent’s determination that computer directory could not be searched and segregated on-site).

The seizure of the CDs was also proper, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress on that ground. Botta returned to his home during the search and told the officer that the CDs contained child pornography. An initial review was no longer necessary following that admission. Also, the seizure did not violate the search warrant protocol because an on-site search of more than seventy CDs would have taken an unreasonable amount of time. *Adjani,*452 F.3d at 1149-50.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32(b)

                            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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report 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.


Date:  June 12, 2006


                                 /s/ Anthony Campo
                                 ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                 Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and
                                 Accounting Officer
DENIED and Opinion Filed February 10, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 15
- 00137
- CV No. 05
- 15
- 00139
- CV No. 05
- 15
- 00140
- CV IN RE ERIK BOWEN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 80668
- 09, 401
- 80666
- 09, 401
- 80667
- 09 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Evans Relator file d this petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has failed to rule on his motion for forensic DNA testing. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in this case fails to comply with rule 52 in a number of respects. “Those seeking the extr aordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k), 52.7, this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 of the rules of appellate procedure to ensure t he integrity of the mandamus record. See , e.g. , In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to– 2

– authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the or der in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus does not include a certification that the person filing the petition “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition i s supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). It does not include an appendix or record in support of the petition. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); 52.7(a). Further , the relator’s petition does not demonstrate that the relator has taken any
measures to obtain a ruling on his motion

. A court is not required to consider a motion that has not been properly called to its attention. In re Davidson , 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2004, orig. pr oceeding); Metzger v. Sebek , 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). The duty to procure a hearing rests on the moving party, not upon the trial judge. Bolton's Estate v. Coats , 608 S.W.2d 722, 729 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Tyler 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Relator’s petition fails to establish a right to mandamus relief. We DENY the petition.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8.

150137F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Report on Form 10-K (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Dennis McKenna, the Chief Executive Officer and Kathy Lanterman,
the Chief Financial Officer of Silicon Graphics, Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Silicon Graphics, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 16, 2006



/s/ Dennis McKennaName:

Dennis McKennaChief Executive Officer/s/ Kathy LantermanName:

Kathy LantermanChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                         26,942
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,192
<INVENTORY>                                    76,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              242,335
<PP&E>                                        149,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 71,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                512,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         110,121
<BONDS>                                       372,365
<COMMON>                                       18,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  512,619
<SALES>                                       360,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              360,785
<CGS>                                         248,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 248,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  745
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             29,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               184
<DISCONTINUED>                                  9,046
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,299)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .23
        







</TABLE>
Filed 10/16/15 P . v. Hernandez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Defenda nt and Appellant. D067958

(Super. Ct. No. JCF34300)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Diane B.

Altamirano, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura R. Sheppard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant

.

No appearance by Respondent.

Jose Hernandez entered a no contest plea to second degree burglary (Pen

. Code

, 1

§ 459). He was promised probation, however he agreed that if he failed to appear at

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.2

sentencing he would be subject to a prison sentence. Hern andez did not appear for

sentencing

, and he was later arrested.

Hernandez was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months in prison, subject to

various fines and fees. One o f the fines imposed in the abstract of judgment wa s a $10

fine pursuant to section 1202.5. The fine was not mentioned by the court at sentencing.

Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating that she has been unable to identify any r easonably

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for

error as mandated by Wende . We offered Hernandez the opportunity to file his own brief

on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 1 3 , 2015, Hernandez entered a JC Penn e y ' s store, after hours

, through

an unlocked door. Hernandez entered with the intent to steal some clothing but was not

able to take anything.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuan t to Wende, supra , 25

Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders v

.

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel has identified the following issue:

Whether the $10 fine imposed in the abstract pursuant to se ction 1202.5 should be

stricken because it was discretionary and the court did not make an express finding that

Hernandez had the ability to pay.3

The issue was never raised in the trial court and is thus waived on appeal. ( People

v

. Trujillo (2015) 60 Ca l.4th 850

. ) Thus it does not raise a reasonably arguable issue.

We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hernandez on

this appeal

.

DISPOSITION

Th e judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

PRAGER, J. *

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice p ursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                                           |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                November 14, 2006 | /s/                Stephen J. Benedetti        |
|                                   | Stephen                J. Benedetti            |
|                                   | Principal                Executive Officer and |
|                                   | Principal                Financial Officer     |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**LAVOND A. HILL,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, ERIC P. BUSH,** 

**SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI-PINE GROVE,** 

**Appellees :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 8 EAP 2016** 

**Appeal from the Order of**

**Commonwealth Court entered on**

**11/12/2015 at No. 378 MD 2013**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, **this 28 th**  **day of September, 2016, the order of the Commonweal th** 

**Court is AFFIRMED.**
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Vogt, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Vogt,*118 Ohio St.3d 193, 2008-Ohio-2205.]

(No. 2007-0670

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Simpkins,*117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.

*194John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Katherine A. Szudy, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
exv10w5



 





Exhibit 10.5




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Peabody Energy Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted the Peabody Energy
Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Company has the power to amend the Plan,
subject to certain limitations set forth therein;



     WHEREAS, the Company contemplates spinning off a portion of its business into another entity
(referred to herein as “Patriot Coal Corporation”), which is expected to result in the transfer of
some of the Company’s employees to employment with Patriot Coal Corporation; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to allow employees who are currently
contributing to the Plan and whose employment will be transferred to Patriot Coal Corporation as
part of the spin-off to continue to participate in the Plan through the end of the Offering Period
(as such term is defined in the Plan) in which such transfer occurs if certain conditions are
satisfied;



     NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective October 10, 2007, as follows:



I.




     Section 2.7 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of a sentence at the end thereof
that reads as follows:




     “Notwithstanding the foregoing, Compensation shall not include any amount paid to
an Employee after he or she incurs a termination of employment with the Company
and all Participating Subsidiaries.”



II.




     Section 5.1(a)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:




     “(iii) unless otherwise provided in Section 5.1(c), following the termination
of employment with the Company and all Participating Subsidiaries;”



 









 





III.




     Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (c) at the end
thereof that reads as follows:




     “(c) Notwithstanding Section 5.1(a)(iii), any Employee who is enrolled in the
Plan during an Offering Period in which the Employee incurs a termination of
employment with the Company and transfers directly to employment with Patriot Coal
Corporation shall be permitted to remain enrolled in the Plan through the earliest
of (x) the Termination Date of such Offering Period, (y) the termination of such
Employee’s employment with Patriot Coal Corporation, or (z) three months after the
date such Employee incurs a termination of employment with the Company.”



IV.




     The Plan shall otherwise remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION





Sharon D. Fiehler

EVP Human Resources and Administration

 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of CERBCO, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 12, 2004



/s/ Robert W. EriksonRobert W. EriksonPresident




May 12, 2004



/s/ George Wm. EriksonGeorge Wm. EriksonChairman & General Counsel




May 12, 2004



/s/ Robert F. HartmanRobert F. HartmanVice President, Secretary & Treasurer
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

February 12, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Oak Grove Resources, LLC,*Docket Nos. SE 2010-1236, et al.**(Issuesinclude whether the Judge erred in concluding that a safeguard notice was valid.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel