alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 500051

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### VICTOR A. HURTADO Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry , US M C

. Convening Authority: Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces

Command, N orfolk,VA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major C.G. Blosser, USMC

. For A ppellant : Lieutenant R . Andrew Austria, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 1 2 January 2017

_________________________ Before P ALMER , C AMPBELL , and H UTCHISON , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TRID L Clerk of Court
|   | (1)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and                                |
|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2)  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. |

| Date:  March 15, 2013       | By:    | /s/ Joseph Dwyer   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                                                |   | Joseph Dwyer            |   |
|                                                                |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                                |   |                    |   |

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMON S SEA,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5671

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, CPT KEN TYNDAL ;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, MIRIAM SCHWARTZ ;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation

Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable J. KELLEY ARNOLD

Date: TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

Time: 2:00 PM

(X) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing, CONDITIONED ON FULL

COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION..

( ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. .

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

April 3, 2007.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05671-JKA Document 15 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James A. Watt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                   /s/ JAMES A. WATT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      James A. Watt
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

December 16, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Grace Petral ANYIKE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2474.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 22, 2005.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, Noto & Oswald, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United States *190Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Grace Petral Anyike, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Anyike challenges the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to demonstrate that she filed her application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). *See Zaidi v. Ashcroft,*377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Anyike’s asylum claim.

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of Anyike’s requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2005). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing *INS v. Stevic,*467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1994)). To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Anyike failed to meet these standards.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
MANAGEMENT’S
ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE





Management
of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is
responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.





Management
has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are
applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as
follows:





Platform:  Publicly-issued
(i.e., transaction-level
reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed
securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides
trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”)





Applicable Servicing
Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to
the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any
transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv),
1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)
and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not
applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform
(the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).





Period:  Twelve
months ended December 31, 2008 (the “Period”).





With
respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management
provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable
Servicing Criteria:




·
            The
      Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance
      with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria.




·
            The
      Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the
      criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph
      (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.




·
            Based
      on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects,
      with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria.




KPMG LLP,
a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with
respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria as of and for the Period.




CITIBANK, N.A.




By:
      /s/
      Karen MontbachKaren MontbachIts: 
      Managing Director
















Dated:
February 27, 2009
SUNNYSIDE
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF IRVINGTON


 


SUNNYSIDE
BANCORP, INC.





 


 






 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE


TO
THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH GERARDINA MIRTUONO


 





 






 


This
Amendment Number One (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into between Sunnyside Federal Savings and Loan Association of Irvington (the “Association”) and Gerardina
Mirtuono (the “Executive”) is made by the Association and the Executive, effective as of March 20, 2018
(the “Effective Date”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Agreement was entered effective as of July 15, 2014; and


 


WHEREAS,
Sunnyside Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a signatory to the Agreement for the purpose of guaranteeing the
Association’s performance under the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committees of the Association and the Company, the Association and the Executive
desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the automatic renewal of the term of the Agreement upon a Change in Control; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 15(a) of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing signed by the parties.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, this Amendment is hereby adopted as follows:


 


	 	1.	Section
    2of the Agreement is hereby amended to add a new Section 2(e) to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“(e)
Automatic Renewal of Term upon Change in Control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the legal closing date of a Change
in Control, as such term is defined in this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended, without any
further action, so that it shall terminate thirty-six months following the legal closing date on which the Change in Control occurs.”


 


	 	2.	Section
    5(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following sentence immediately after the end of Section 5(c) of the Agreement:


 


“(c)
In addition, upon the occurrence of a Change in Control, Executive shall be fully vested in all restricted stock awards granted
to Executive under the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan or other benefit plans.”


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized officer of the Association and the Company has executed this Amendment as of the Effective
Date.


 


	 	SUNNYSIDE
    FEDERAL SAVINGS AND 

    LOAN ASSOCIATION OF IRVINGTON
	 	 	 
	 	By:
    	/s/
    William Boeckelman                 
	 	Name:	William Boeckelman
	 	Title:	Director
	 	 	 
	 	SUNNYSIDE
    BANCORP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    William Boeckelman
	 	Name:	William Boeckelman
	 	Title:	Director
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Gerardina Mirtuono
	 	Gerardina
    Mirtuono
	 	Senior
    Vice President and Chief Operating Officer


 



    	 	2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Economicgeology of the Kenova quadrangle, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:349
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958161
 
July 27, 2018
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CLYDE MCKNIGHT JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

ALICE PAYNE CASE NUMBER: C05-5254RJB 

 

 

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has

rendered its verdict.

 _X__ Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and

a decision has been rendered.

The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 May 9, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/Dara L. Kaleel 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05254-RJB Document 54 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS EVANS DUNIGAN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5202M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 (X) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 (X) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 (X) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 31, 2005.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 7 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Robinson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 982]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered August 10,1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized motion to set aside the verdict was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Dien,*77 NY2d 885; *People v Asaro,*182 AD2d 823; *People v Rios,*180 AD2d 696). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses *(People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). The jury’s determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MLE XRISTENEXANADU,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5703RBL

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if any,

and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's counsel

and Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05703-RBL Document 14 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 1
September 17, 2015

Mr. Michael Jon Turner

2099 Highway 6 Trail #2

Marengo, IA 52301

Dear Mr. Turner :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request f iled in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2768 on July 7, 2015

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the fo llowing:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34