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

No. 12-50391.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Matthew Sutton, Special Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Marks, Janet Tung, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Espino-Ibarra appeals his sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment plus three years’ supervised release for his conviction for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

We review a-sentence for abuse of discretion in two steps. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). First, we ensure that the district court did not commit any significant procedural errors. *Id.*Second, once we determine that the sentence was procedurally sound, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. *Id.*

Espino-Ibarra appears to have waived his procedural challenge to the district court’s offer to delay his sentencing for one year and then sentence him to five years of probation. *See United States v. Gillenwater,*717 F.3d 1070, 1073 n. 1 (9th Cir.2013) (explicitly limiting appeal to particular arguments waives other arguments). Even if not waived, the district court’s offer was not plain error. The district court did not act contrary to law by making the suggestion. *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (an error is plain if it is *488contrary to law). Nor has Espino-Ibarra shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the district court’s suggestion. *See id.*

The district court began each sentencing proceeding by referencing or calculating the correct Guidelines range. The Guidelines range was one of several appropriate factors that the district court considered in fashioning the sentence. *See United States v. Autery,*555 F.3d 864, 871-73 (9th Cir.2009).

Because we conclude that Espino-Ibar-ra’s sentence was procedurally sound, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The sentence was reasonably based on the 18 U.S.C. § 5353(a) factors, specifically, the need to deter criminal conduct. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The district court arrived at this sentence independent of Espino-Ibarra’s decision not to delay his sentencing, and the sentence was not greater than necessary to serve the § 3553(a) factors.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2399

AMENDMENTS
In the Senate of the United States,

October 5 (legislative day, September 27), 1993.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2399) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the settlement of land claims of the Catawba Tribe of Indians in the

State of South Carolina and the restoration of the Federal

trust relationship with the Tribe, and for other purposes’’, do

pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 11, lines 1 and 2, strike out øentitled¿ and in2 sert: eligible

3 Ω2æPage 11, line 5, strike out øentitled¿ and insert: eli4 gible

5 Ω3æPage 50, strike out all after line 23 over to and in6 cluding line 8 on page 51 and insert:

7 (c) LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED

8 STATES.—The provisions of any Federal law enacted after

9 the date of enactment of this Act, for the benefit of Indians,

10 Indian nations, tribes, or bands of Indians, which would

11 affect or preempt the application of the laws of the State

12 to lands owned by or held in trust for Indians, or Indian

13 nations, tribes, or bands of Indians, as provided in this Act

14 and the South Carolina State Implementing Act, shall not
2

HR 2399 EAS

1 apply within the State of South Carolina, unless such pro2 vision of such subsequently enacted Federal law is specifi3 cally made applicable within the State of South Carolina.

Attest:

Secretary.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00131-CV

Lorraine KENYON, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon,

Appellants

v.

ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI14055

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s unopposed first motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to October 10, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis in Mathematical Sciences (1204).                    

*Date and Time:*                         March 26-28, 8:30 A.M. until 5 P.M.                    

*Place:*                         Room 120, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lloyd E. Douglas, Program Director, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 292-4862.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposal submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals concerning the Interdisciplinary Grants in the Mathematical Science Panel as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-4163 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 11

               ALLIED Life Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              For the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      1997                    1996                     1995

                                                             (In thousands, except per share data)
Numerator

  <S>                                            <C>                    <C>                      <C>           
   Net income                                        $  10,473              $    8,073               $    9,712
   Preferred stock dividends                            (1,717)                 (1,601)                  (1,493)

   Numerator for basic earnings
   per share - income available to
   common stockholders                                   8,756                   6,472                    8,219

   Effect of diluted securities
     Convertible preferred stock
     dividends                                             107                      95                       85

     Numerator for diluted earnings
       per share - income available to

       common stockholders after
       assumed conversion                            $   8,863              $    6,567               $    8,304


Denominator

   Denominator for basic earnings
     per share - weighted average
     shares                                              4,430                   4,580                    4,613

   Effect of dilutive securities
     Stock options                                          35                      36                       34
     Convertible preferred stock                           107                      96                       85


   Dilutive potential common shares                        142                     132                      119

     Denominator for diluted earnings per
       share - adjusted weighted average
       shares and assumed conversions                    4,572                   4,712                     4,732



Basic earnings per share                             $    1.98              $     1.41                $     1.78


Diluted earnings per share                           $    1.94              $     1.39                $     1.75

</TABLE>


                                       94
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 30, 2021

No. 04-20-00611-CV

Justin W. LITTLE,

Appellant

v.

Christy B. LITTLE,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08129

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s judgment was signed on November 20, 2020. Appellant filed his notice 

of appeal on December 21, 2020. Because appellant filed a motion for new trial, the clerk’s 

record and reporter’s record were due on March 22, 2021. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(a). On March 

24, 2021, the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record in this appeal filed a 

notification of late record, stating that appellant has failed (1) to request in writing that she 

prepare the clerk’s record and (2) to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the 

clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).

We therefore ORDER appellant to file written proof in this court no later than ten (10) 

days after the date of this order showing that: (1) he has requested that the trial court clerk 

prepare the clerk’s record and that the official court reporter prepare the reporter’s record in 

compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and 34.6, respectively; and that either

(2) the clerk’s and court reporter’s fees for preparation of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record 

have been paid or payment arrangements have been made, or appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5, 34.6; 20.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 145.

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Richard A. ALTOMARE, et al., petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

No. 08-1272.

June 1, 2009.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


<PAGE>

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                SUBSIDIARY                                   STATE OF INCORPORATION
                ----------                                   ----------------------
        <S>                                                  <C>
        Amite Foundry and Machine, Inc.                          Louisiana

        Prospect Foundry, Inc.                                   Minnesota

        Quaker Alloy, Inc.                                       Pennsylvania

        Canadian Steel Foundries Ltd.                            Quebec, Canada

        Kramer International, Inc.                               Wisconsin

        Empire Steel Castings, Inc.                              Pennsylvania

        La Grange Foundry Inc.                                   Missouri

        The G&C Foundry Company                                  Ohio

        Los Angeles Die Casting Inc.                             California

        Canada Alloy Castings, Ltd.                              Ontario, Canada

        Pennsylvania Steel Foundry &                             Pennsylvania
         Machine Company

        Jahn Foundry Corp.                                       Massachusetts

        PrimeCast, Inc.                                          Wisconsin

        Inverness Castings Group, Inc.                           Delaware

        Atchison Casting UK Limited                              England

        Sheffield Forgemasters Group, Ltd.                       England

        Sheffield Forgemasters Engineering Ltd.                  England

        Sheffield Forgemasters Rolls Ltd.                        England

        Claremont Foundry, Inc.                                  Delaware

        London Precision Machine & Tool Ltd.                     Ontario, Canada

        Foundrie d'Autun                                         Autun, France

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2825
WALTER C. JENKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ECKERD DRUG STORE #1038, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1209-2-2AJ) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter C. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. David Brian McCormack, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his Title VII claimalleging race discrimination. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Jenkins v. Eckerd Drug Store #1038 , No. CA-94-1209-2-2AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                  OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   Exhibit (21) Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Name of Incorporation                   State or Other             Date of
   or Organization                       Jurisdiction           Incorporation
---------------------                    ------------           -------------

Macro International Inc.                Delaware               March 17, 1972

Social & Health Services, Ltd.          Maryland               June 17, 1991

ORC, Inc.                               Delaware               December 16, 1991

European Information Centre Limited     United Kingdom         December 20, 1991

ORC Holdings, Ltd.                      United Kingdom         July 17, 1996

ORC Korea, Ltd.                         Korea                  November 30, 1996

ORC International Holdings, Inc.        Cayman Islands         March 18, 1997

ORC TeleService Corp.                   Delaware               March 26, 1997

Opinion Research Corporation,
 S.A. de C.V.                           Mexico, D.F.           July 10, 1997

ORC ProTel, Inc.                        Delaware               November 20, 1997

O.R.C. International Ltd.               United Kingdom         December 15, 1997

Rating Research LLC*                    Delaware               January 8, 2001

ORC Telecommunications Ltd.             Maryland               October 3, 2002


           * 50% of the voting shares are controlled by the Registrant
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                    144273
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                           10760985
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              1979266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        13234137
<PP&E>                                 139997672
<DEPRECIATION>                          44337670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         146512395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   12733413
<BONDS>                                 19969796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                43420298
<OTHER-SE>                              48070159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           146512395
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        16235282
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           10688404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        179775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          4221035
<INCOME-TAX>                             1636787
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      2449650
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             2449650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.189
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.187
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2016

t0922 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2016

151282

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151282

COA: 324831

Saginaw CC: 14

- 039708

- FC

JOHN JOSEPH BARRERA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2015

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Sag inaw County

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after

the date of this order. The prosecutor shall specifically address whether, pursuant to

People v Thompson , 488 Mich 888 (2010) and People v Spanke , 254 Mich App 642

(2003), Offense Variable 8, MCL 777.38, should not have been scored in this case where

the movement was “incidental” to the offense of criminal sexual conduct in the second

degree. See also People v Hardy , 494 Mich 430, 442 (2013) (“[A]bsent an e xpress

prohibition, courts may consider conduct inherent in a crime when scoring offense

variables.”).

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Form 8974:

(Rev. December 2017)

Qualified Small Business Payroll Tax Credit for Increasing Research Activities

Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service

950817

OMB No. 1545-0029

Employer identification number (EIN) —

Name (not your trade name)

The credit from Part 2, line 12, will be 

reported on (check only one box):

Form 941, 941-PR, or 941-SS

Form 943 or 943-PR 

Form 944 or 944(SP)

Calendar year You must select a quarter if you file Form 941, 941-PR, or 941-SS.

Report for this quarter . . . 

Check only one box.

1: January, February, March

2: April, May, June

3: July, August, September

4: October, November, December

Part 1: Tell us about your income tax return.

(a) 

Ending date 

of income 

tax period

(b) 

Income 

tax return 

filed that 

included 

Form 6765

(c) 

Date income 

tax return 

was filed

(d) 

EIN 

used on 

Form 6765

(e) 

Amount from 

Form 6765, line 44, 

or if applicable, 

the amount that 

was allocated 

to your EIN 

(f) 

Amount of credit 

from column (e) 

taken on a 

previous period(s) 

(g) 

Remaining credit 

(subtract column (f) 

from column (e)) 

1 / / / / . . .

2 / / / / . . .

3 / / / / . . .

4 / / / / . . .

5 / / / / . . .

6 Add lines 1(g) through 5(g) and enter the total here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 2: Determine the credit that you can use this period.

7 Enter the amount from Part 1, line 6(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .

8 Enter the amount from Form 941 (941-PR or 941-SS), 

line 5a, Column 2; Form 943 (943-PR), line 3; or Form 

944 (944(SP)), line 4a, Column 2 . . . . . . . 8 .

9 Enter the amount from Form 941 (941-PR or 941-SS), 

line 5b, Column 2; or Form 944 (944(SP)), line 4b, 

Column 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .

10 Add lines 8 and 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .

11 Multiply line 10 by 50% (0.50). Check this box if you're a third-party payer of sick pay or

check this box if you received a Section 3121(q) Notice and Demand. See the

instructions before completing line 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .

12 Credit. Enter the smaller of line 7 or line 11. Also enter this amount on Form 941 (941-PR 

or 941-SS), line 11; Form 943 (943-PR), line 12; or Form 944 (944(SP)), line 8 . . . . . 12 .

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. www.irs.gov/Form8974 Cat. No. 37797C Form 8974 (Rev. 12-2017)