alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10888

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EZER ROSEMBEL BARRIENTOS-OSORIO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-211-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezer Rosembel Barrientos-Osorio appeals the sentence imposed upon 

revocation of his supervised release following his conviction for illegal reentry, 

contending that the district court plainly erred by imposing a new, 22-month 

supervised release term on a deportable alien without explanation, contrary to 

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). Because Barrientos-Osorio did not object to his revocation 

sentence, we review for plain error. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10888 Document: 00515493525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2020
No. 19-10888

2

792 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Barrientos-Osorio must identify (1) a 

forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial 

rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies 

the first three requirements, we have discretion to remedy the error if the error 

“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We need not decide whether Barrientos-Osorio has shown clear or 

obvious sentencing error because even if he could do so, his cursory and 

misdirected arguments with respect to the third and fourth plain error prongs 

are inadequate to warrant the exercise of our corrective discretion. See United 

States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1019 n.3 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. 

Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Clark, 2020 WL 

3261697, at *1 (5th Cir. June 16, 2020). Contrary to his assertions, MolinaMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016), is not dispositive. Because 

Barrientos-Osorio has not met his affirmative burden to establish each plain 

error prong, see id. at 1343, we AFFIRM the judgment.

 Case: 19-10888 Document: 00515493525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2020
#### In the Matter of Charleswood Realty Company, Respondent, v New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, Appellant.

Appeal from default judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 5, 1979, which granted the petition and annulled the order of respondent, the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, determining the initial legal regulated rent for an apartment which became subject to the Rent Stabilization Law on July 1,1974, unanimously dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as nonappealable (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1). Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 27,1979, denying respondent’s motion to open its default, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted. After receiving two adjournments respondent board applied for additional time to interpose an answer in this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Special Term refused an adjournment and eventually granted petitioner judgment “without opposition”. Before the settlement of judgment, respondent unsuccessfully moved to open its default. The motion should have been granted. The board demonstrated an adequate excuse for the default in answering, and merit to its opposition to the petition. Moreover, petitioner landlord was unable to show any prejudice if the default were opened. On the other hand the tenant, not a party to the proceeding, and not responsible for the delay in answering, would suffer adverse consequences. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2009
THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

N o

. 0 8

- 1 5 0 0 3 N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 0 3 8 0

- C R

- 0 3

- R W S

- 1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

A D O L F O B A D I L L O
, a

. k

. a

. G u e r r o , a

. k

. a

. S o b r i n o , a

. k

. a

. L a G u e r a ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 5 1 3 8 N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 0 3 3

- C R

- 1

- R W S

- 1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

A D O L F O P A D I L L O
,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u n e 2 2
, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e : D U B I N A
, C h i e f J u d g e , T J O F L A T a n d C O X
, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

E

. V a u g h n D u n n i g a n , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r A d o l f

o B a d i l l o i n t h e s e

c o n s o l i d a t e d d i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l s , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , b e c a u s e , i n h e r o p i n i o n , t h e a p p e a l s a r e w i t h o u t

m e r i t

. C o u n s e l h a s f

i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8
, 8 7

S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6
, 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d

r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l s i s c o r r e c t

.

B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f

m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D
, a n d B a d i l l o ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d

s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### § 603.815 Withholding payments.

A TIA must provide that the contracting officer may withhold payments in the circumstances described in 10 CFR 600.312(g), but not otherwise.
PGI 242.302 Contract administration

functions.

(a)(13)(B)(1) For contracts assigned to DCMA for contract administration, designate as the payment

office—

(i) The cognizant Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) payment office as specified in the

Federal Directory of Contract Administration Services Components, available at

https://piee.eb.mil/pcm/xhtml/unauth/index.xhtml , for contracts funded with DoD funds;

(ii) The department or agency payment office, if authorized by defense financial management

regulations or if the contract is funded with non-DoD funds; or

(iii) Multiple payment offices under paragraphs (a)(13)(B)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, if the contract

is funded with both DoD and non-DoD funds.

(2) For contracts not assigned to DCMA, select a payment office or offices under department/agency

procedures.

(3) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is the method of payment for a contract or

order, enter “CRCARD” in the payment office code block.

(56) Assignment of a Government flight representative (GFR) may require execution of a secondary

contract administration delegation, which is used to transfer contract administration responsibilities

(see FAR 42.302(a)) from one contract administration office to another office or command.

Secondary contract administration delegations are appropriate when, for example, contract work is

performed at locations geographically separated from the contract administration office. In lieu of

transferring contract administration responsibility through a secondary contract administration

delegation, a GFR from one unit may be delegated GFR responsibility from an outside contract

administration organization that has retained contract administration responsibility. This is

accomplished through the use of a formal letter of agreement functionally assigning the GFR to the

outside contract administration organization for the limited purpose of performing contract

administration under FAR 42.302(a)(56).

PGI 242.302 (a)(S-72) —Surveillance of the contractors implementation of the

Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT)

PGI 242.302 (a)(S-75) —Monitoring contractor costs

Parent topic: PGI 242.3 -CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE FUNCTIONS
2007-1913.

#### Reeder v. Knuckles.

Clermont App. No. CA2006-11-095, 2007-0hio-4541.

Pfeifer, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
IV 

House Calendar No. 97 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 469 

[Report No. 109–239] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making 

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes; for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; and addressing 

a motion to proceed under section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure 

and Realignment Act of 1990. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

68) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 

2006, and for other purposes; for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; and addressing a motion 

to proceed under section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
2 

HRES 469 RH 

1 Res. 68) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 

2 year 2006, and for other purposes. The joint resolution 

3 shall be considered as read. The previous question shall 

4 be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 

5 passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

6 of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

7 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appro8 priations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

9 SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legisla10 tive day of Thursday, October 6, 2005, for the Speaker 

11 to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. 

12 The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minor13 ity Leader or her designee on the designation of any mat14 ter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. 

15 SEC. 3. A motion to proceed pursuant to section 2908 

16 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 

17 shall be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader 

18 or his designee. 

House Calendar No. 97 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 469 

[Report No. 109–239] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

ment Act of 1990. 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignand addressing a motion to proceed under section for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; for the fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes; (H.J. Res. 68) making continuing appropriations 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,798
<PP&E>                                             927
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           669
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,049
<SALES>                                         24,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,364
<CGS>                                           22,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,221)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Employee Plan Examination Process

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Employer mails additional 

information to agent 

or agent conducts 

subsequent visit

CASE CLOSED

Closing letter issued

Publication 4324 (Rev. 11-2011) Catalog Number 38453H

Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 

www.irs.gov

CORRECTION PROGRAMS

(Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System)

Yes

No

No

Yes

or

or

Your retirement plan is selected for audit

Letter sent requesting review of plan records and documents

Appointment date set between Employer/POA or 

Authorized Representative and Internal Revenue Service Agent

IRS AGENT CONDUCTS ON-SITE AUDIT OF PLAN

Is additional information needed? 

Are there any issues 

requiring change?

TAX CHANGES

(Potential income or excise tax)

UNAGREED CASE/REVOCATION

(Proposed revocation or nonqualification letter issued)

p4324.indd 1 12/21/1
§ 600.251 Later disallowances and adjustments. The closeout of a grant does not affect: ( a ) The Federal agency's right to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review;
( b ) The grantee's obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions;
( c ) Records retention as required in § 600.242;
( d ) Property management requirements in §§ 600.231 and 600.232; and
( e ) Audit requirements in § 600.226.
[53 FR 8045, 8087, Mar. 11, 1988. Redesignated at 59 FR 53264, Oct. 21, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996]
| (logo)    PNC

              REAL ESTATE | MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

of

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

d/b/a MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES

 

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, the undersigned, Steven W. Smith, as Executive Vice President of Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the Servicer’s activities during the calendar year 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer’s supervision; and

2. To the best of the undersigned officer’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Dated: March 1, 2016

 

PNC Bank, National Association

d/b/a Midland Loan Services

 

/s/ Steven W. Smith 

Steven W. Smith

Executive Vice President

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc.
| Recipient Role                                                           | Deal Name                   | Series Number   | Midland Role     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------|------------------|
| Depositor                                                                | RBS Commercial Funding Inc. | Series 2013-C11 | Special Servicer |
| Depositor                                                                | RBS Commercial Funding Inc. | Series 2014-C25 |                  |
| Special Servicer of the AMCP Portfolio loan under the WFCMT 2016-C26 PSA |

 

 

Member of The PNC Financial Services Group

10851 Mastin Boulevard   Overland Park, Kansas 66210

800-327-8083

www.pnc.com/midland
Exhibit  99.2


                            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 The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Catherine K. Jessup,  Vice President and Chief Financial 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 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.



                                        /s/ Catherine K. Jessup
                                        ------------------------
                                            Catherine K. Jessup
                                              Vice President -
                                         Chief Financial Officer




October 15, 2002
Docket No: FAA-2015-4817 Dir ID: 2014-NM-115-AD
Exhibit 13.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 Annual Report of Kamada Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David Tsur, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 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), as applicable, 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: April 28, 2015


/s/ David Tsur

David Tsur

Chief Executive Officer


In connection with the Annual Report of Kamada Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gil Efron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 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), as applicable, 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: April 28, 2015




/s/ Gil Efron

Gil Efron

Chief Financial Officer
§ 440.2 Administration of grants. Grant awards under this part shall comply with applicable law including, without limitation, the requirements of: ( a ) Executive Order 12372 entitled “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”, 48 FR 3130, and the DOE Regulation implementing this Executive Order entitled “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Energy Programs and Activities” (10 CFR part 1005);
( b ) Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, entitled “Rules and Regulations Permitting Federal Agencies to Provide Specialized or Technical Services to State and Local Units of Government under Title III of the Inter-Governmental Coordination Act of 1968;”
( c ) Unless in conflict with provisions of this part, the DOE Financial Assistance Rule (10 CFR part 600); and
( d ) Such other procedures applicable to this part as DOE may from time to time prescribe for the administration of financial assistance.
( e ) ( 1 ) States, Tribes and their subawardees, including, but not limited to subrecipients, subgrantees, contractors and subcontractors that participate in the program established under this Part are required to treat all requests for information concerning applicants and recipients of WAP funds in a manner consistent with the Federal Government's treatment of information requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, including the privacy protections contained in Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). Under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), information relating to an individual's eligibility application or the individual's participation in the program, such as name, address, or income information, are generally exempt from disclosure.
( 2 ) A balancing test must be used in applying Exemption (b)(6) in order to determine: ( i ) Whether a significant privacy interest would be invaded;
( ii ) Whether the release of the information would further the public interest by shedding light on the operations or activities of the Government; and
( iii ) Whether in balancing the privacy interests against the public interest, disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
( 3 ) A request for personal information including but not limited to the names, addresses, or income information of WAP applicants or recipients would require the State or other service provider to balance a clearly defined public interest in obtaining this information against the individuals' legitimate expectation of privacy.
( 4 ) Given a legitimate, articulated public interest in the disclosure, States and other service providers may release information regarding recipients in the aggregate that does not identify specific individuals. However, a State or service provider must apply an FOIA Exemption (b)(6) balancing test to any request for information that can not be satisfied by such less-intrusive methods.
[49 FR 3629, Jan. 27, 1984, as amended at 75 FR 11422, Mar. 11, 2010; 77 FR 11737, Feb. 28, 2012]