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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

BRENDA TRINIDAD JAIME-SAINZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30248 

D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00114-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Brenda Trinidad Jaime-Sainz appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 210-month concurrent sentences imposed following her guilty-plea 

convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of 

methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and 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

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-30248 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jaime-Sainz contends that the district court abdicated its responsibility to 

conduct an independent inquiry as to the extent of the downward departure she 

should receive for her substantial assistance to the government under U.S.S.G. 

§ 5K1.1. To the contrary, the record reflects that the district court considered 

arguments from both parties and provided a reasoned basis for its acceptance of the 

government’s two-level downward departure recommendation. See United States 

v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 964 (9th Cir. 1999). The court did not err by giving 

weight to the government’s assessment of the value of Jaime-Sainz’s assistance. 

See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a)(1) & cmt. n.3; Laney, 189 F.3d at 964. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mega Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gennady Pomeranets, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mega Media Group, Inc.





By:
/s/ Gennady PomeranetsGENNADY POMERANETSChief Financial Officer,Date:
September 21, 2009
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 158 ) VI-E-7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:21 PM

Sheet 158of 198P. 2 

# V A-83-2 7 VI-E- 7 CONTAC TREPOR T Dat e lo /^4/8 5 Originato rIrene ICUD CONTAC TBY : TELEPHON E & MEETIN G • Othe r NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R Was.hinqHn, DC*

MA-

bB3L-

WOOQ PURPOS E O R SUBJEC

T(Giv e project numbe ri f appropriate ) 

## Oi l T^cuo^pof- t trO.'+kiV i M*e. \4aiOAii-XM Islone/ s SUMMAR Y Gt-e*\-eA-i%.\\i



## - H>OM<\C 

## \

pi**;W w- b tAUey i4a«f e

" W o diodttx

or. Specifi cSiz^ s o- T4tt^fc«^S / Tyucit ^ -&k .

- Truwt i s a . *2ft(rptu s o A•hxy\-ur -fonnaqe

Vy. Jtoe

vuon*ld

hrd.cXi^.

- Mtuj . feej, s^urv t p i peli ' n£ , b*sfnJ£fi> i rehryuy <i>i d dtii-p*>*t .

- I n Honolul u - rYVxu . receiv e pvoduc * ito-eoRc t ^o->m m^r^o^terS. from Peho\eu4r*

StejHsh'c s V&djULUs

CvYx^uned

vv* Mavuai ' - 37,^i g x:/o 3 bbl s 0<?8to ) ?/ - 44^cuj - * 142.HK10 3 bWl s Yt^dModL, A^K-IO 3 mttMu*^

dJe&Hrte,, ACTIO N ' r § Distribution :

# t J • CONTAC TREPOR T P. 3

Dat e Originato r CONTAC TBY : TELEPHON E D MEETIN G •Othe r NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R PURPOS E O R SUBJEC T(Giv e projec t numbe r i fappropriate ) SUMMAR Y 

## Utmonmncl-id. fae folio win*&r wore, 1^^TM^crn.



## - r\a*ia;.'.w SkUe Upl

• oitneKfj

- Chevron

(owner of refinery

on Ocxhu)

ACTIO N Distribution :
# C_2010195EN.01003103.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/31

---

Action brought on 25 May 2010 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Speed reducers)

(Case T-246/10)

2010/C 195/51

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL (Xeraco, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Motive S.r.l.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision and, accordingly, dismiss the opposition brought by MOTIVE S.r.l., and declare that the grant of Community Design No 000625702-001 for ‘reducers’ is well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, accordingly, dismiss the opposition brought by MOTIVE S.r.l., and declare that the grant of Community Design No 000625702-001 for ‘reducers’ is well founded;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community Design No 625702-0001 for Reducers in Class 15/01 (Motors)).

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Motive S.r.l.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Community Design No 73952-0001

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the Community design concerned.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs.

Pleas in law:

---
----

|   | 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 NutraCea. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  February  24, 2011 |                    |   |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                           |                    |   |
|                                           |                    |   |
|                                           | /s/ W. John Short       |   |
|                                           | W. John Short           |   |
|                                           | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                           |                    |   |
|                                           |                    |   |
|                                           | /s/ Dale Belt           |   |
|                                           | Jerry Dale Belt         |   |
|                                           | Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
(38 South. 877.)

No. 15,596.

#### MIX, Sheriff, v. CAMPBELL.

(June 19, 1905.)

APPEAL — DISMISSAL—FAILURE TO FILE TRANSCRIPT.

An appeal will be dismissed on motion of appellee where transcript has not been filed within three judicial days after the return day, and no valid extension of time has been granted by the appellate tribunal.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert Raymond Reid, Judge.

Action by F. P. Mix, sheriff and tax collector, against Frank J. Campbell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Dismissed.

Robert S. Ellis, for appellant. Stephen Dudley Ellis and Guy Joseph Ray, for appellee.

On Motion to Dismiss.,

LAND, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for $1,-200 retail liquor license alleged to be due the parish of Tangipahoa for the year 1904. The defendant pleaded exemption on the ground that he had paid $1,200 to the town of Ponchatoula for a similar license for the same year, and therefore his business was exempt from the payment of xi&rochial license under the provisions of Act No. 17, p. 24, of 1902.

There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal, which was made returnable to this court “on or before August 18, 1904,” on the ground that the transcript was filed long after the expiration of the return day.

The record shows that the transcript was filed in this court on March 8, 1905, and does not disclose that any extension of time has been granted by this tribunal.

An appeal will be dismissed on motion of appellee where the transcript has not been filed within three judicial days after the return day fixed by the inferior judge, and no valid extension of time has been granted by the appellate tribunal. Code Prac. art. 883 (Garland’s Notes).

Axipeal dismissed.
### §646. Liens

Any interest held by the Administration in property, as security for a loan, shall be subordinate to any lien on such property for taxes due on the property to a State, or political subdivision thereof, in any case where such lien would, under applicable State law, be superior to such interest if such interest were held by any party other than the United States.

(Pub. L. 85–536, §2[17], July 18, 1958, 72 Stat. 396.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Section 217 of act July 30, 1953, ch. 282, title II, 67 Stat. 239, was previously classified to this section. See section 640 of this title, and Codification note set out under section 631 of this title.
#### § 72.25 Dipping methods.

Dipping is accomplished by thoroughly wetting the entire skin by either immersion in a chemical solution in a dip vat, or by spraying with a chemical solution using a spray-dip machine or a hand-held sprayer.

[50 FR 430, Jan. 4, 1985]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF GABLES RESIDENTIAL TRUST FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000913782
<NAME> GABLES RESIDENTIAL TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,589,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,471,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        755,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,500
<PREFERRED>                                    115,000
<COMMON>                                           268
<OTHER-SE>                                     391,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,471,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,597
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,601
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.64


</TABLE>
#### § 131.43 Report of securities issued.

(See § 34.10 of this chapter.)

(Submit an original and four copies.)

[Name of respondent]

| Description | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| 1. Face value or principal amount | |
| 2. Plus premium or less discount | |
| 3. Gross proceeds | |
| 4. Underwriter's spread or commission | |
| 5. Securities and Exchange Commission registration fee | |
| 6. State mortgage registration tax | |
| 7. State commission fee | |
| 8. Fee for recording indenture | |
| 9. United States document tax | |
| 10. Printing and engraving expenses | |
| 11. Trustee's charges | |
| 12. Counsel fees | |
| 13. Accountant's fees | |
| 14. Cost of listing | |
| 15. Miscellaneous expenses of issue | |
| (Describe large items) | |
| 16. Total deductions | |
| 17. Net amount realized | |

Report of Securities Issued

Description of security....................................

[Order 141, 12 FR 8591, Dec. 19, 1947, as amended by Order 182, 46 FR 50517, Oct. 14, 1981]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 70 FR 35375, June 20, 2005, § 131.43 introductory text was revised, effective at the time of the next e-filing release during the Commission's next fiscal year. For the convenience of the user, the revised text follows:

#### § 131.43 Report of securities issued.

(See § 34.10 of this chapter)

(Submit in electronic format in accordance with § 385.2003 of this chapter.)

---
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5078 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the temporary relief from troubled 

debt restructurings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2020 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. TESTER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the temporary relief 

from troubled debt restructurings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM TROUBLED DEBT 

4 RESTRUCTURINGS. 

5 Section 4013(a)(1) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 

6 9051(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2022’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.a



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|February 23, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010100EN.01006903.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/69

---

Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council

(Case F-8/10)

2010/C 100/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract and, as a result, to terminate his employment relationship with the Council.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond 30 September 2009 and the refusal to take any measure to regularise the administrative situation of the applicant, who has carried out permanent tasks at the institution for 16 years; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond 30 September 2009 and the refusal to take any measure to regularise the administrative situation of the applicant, who has carried out permanent tasks at the institution for 16 years;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
§ 1304.411 Fish attractor, spawning, and habitat structures. Fish attractors constitute potential obstructions and require TVA approval. ( a ) Fish attractors may be constructed of anchored brush piles, log cribs, and/or spawning benches, stake beds, vegetation, or rock piles, provided they meet “TVA Guidelines for Fish Attractor Placement in TVA Reservoirs” (TVA 1997).
( b ) When established in connection with an approved dock, fish attractors shall not project more than 30 feet out from any portion of the dock.
( c ) Any floatable materials must be permanently anchored.
**John E.** **Rodarte Sr.** **Fourth Court** **Of Appeals** 

### T-B-CJ.***1263270 300** **Dolorosa St-,i!3200** **Clements Unit** **San Antonio,Texas** **78205 9601** **Spur 591** **Amarillo,Texas 79107-9606** **December 29,2014** **RE: Yet** **Undocketed Appeal** **For Cause** **Rodarte Sr-** **Vs. Bexar...County,** **■■ -,,** **Texas,Sheriff Raljjh** **Lopez,Et Al** **2005-CI-18884 en** **Dear Clerk:** 

# ;:**■■ en** **am writing** **ycur office,so** **that the** **proper modes** **of applicable** **law dnd court** **proceedings may** **occur. had** **hearing under** **Bill Of** **Review on** **October 20,2014** **and was dismissed-** **My issue** **here,or issues** 

### are**simple,first,a hearing** **was conducted** **by judge,when** **jury should** **have done,conducted** **the hearing** **on my concerns** **not the judge.** **To add insult** **to injury,as** **caselaw would** **show,the issue** **of service** **..-as an** **issue to** **be determined** **by jury** **Mercedes Benz** **Corp. Vs-Rhyne** 

### Calctwell**Vs.Barnes. A^airwthe** **case was** **already placed** **on the jury** **docket ;"ol** **Se£ti;K.ber 2015,** **and was dismissed** **without any** **agreement from** **me to** **rei/cve the** **case from jury** **docket for** **the hearing** **on October** **20,2014. Thiss** **is co.iipour.6ed** **by my filing** **for new trial,** **which has** **not been** **acknowledged,and appears** **to me that** **it is** **being denied** **under oper**

### ation**of Jaw-** **Therefore,! must** **submit to** **further delay** **by going** **the appeals** **route yet** **again.**

### an**at my** **wits end,and** **feel that must** **litigate my** **civil rights** **further in** **District Court** **by means** **of Title** **42USC§1983,which would** **encompass few of** **ray questionable** **handlec1 cases** **in Bexar** **County, Texas,not** **because lost,but** **because the** **law was** **not adhered** **to**

### correctly,or**only in** **the favor** **of those** **was against** **in court.** **So to** **cover myself,I** **must request** **the forms,necessary** **for the** **docketing of** **an appeal** **in this** **court for** **the above** **styled and** **numbered cause** **of action.** **The case** **stated above,should** **have had** **its day** **in court** **before jury.** **Another thing,the** **law library** **here is** **severely inadequate** **and non-compliant** **with the** **law, When** **it conies** **to having** **the same** **up to** **date legal research** **materials as the** **state,prosecutors,and 'free** **world itigants** **thus an** **unfair advantage** **on all** **accountS 12/29/2014**
### §2505. Research and development

The Secretary of Energy, acting through appropriate agencies and contractors, shall initiate and provide for the conduct of research and development in areas related to electric and hybrid vehicles, including—

(1) energy storage technology, including batteries and their potential for convenient recharging;

(2) vehicle control systems and overall design for energy conservation, including the use of regenerative braking;

(3) urban design and traffic management to promote maximum transportation-related energy conservation and minimum transportation-related degradation of the environment; and

(4) vehicle design which emphasizes durability, length of practical lifetime, ease of repair, and interchangeability and replaceability of parts.

(Pub. L. 94–413, §6, Sept. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Energy" substituted in text for "Administrator" pursuant to section 301(a) of Pub. L. 95–91, see Codification note set out under section 2502 of this title.