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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

JASON CHRISTIAN BERGER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-10252 

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-08075-DLR-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Jason Christian Berger appeals from the district court’s order revoking 

supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Berger’s counsel has filed a brief stating that 

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

* 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

MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-10252 

record. Berger has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been 

filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Berger’s 

pro se arguments that his underlying conviction is invalid because he is innocent, 

and that his former attorneys were ineffective, cannot be raised in these 

proceedings. See United States v. Cate, 971 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2020)

(defendant cannot attack his underlying conviction in a supervised release 

revocation proceeding); United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on 

direct appeal). Moreover, the record shows that Berger’s supervised release was 

not revoked for his alleged use of cocaine or for failing to attend drug treatment. 

Rather, his supervised release was properly revoked upon his admission that he had 

failed to appear for mandatory drug tests. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Berger’s pro se requests for 

relief are DENIED. 

AFFIRMED.
***EXHIBIT 31 (b)***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Kent Carasquero, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K (“Report”) of Mistral Ventures, Inc.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;   

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  

 

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and   

 

5. I have disclosed based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 5, 2008

 

/s/ Kent Carasquero  

Kent Carasquero, Chief Financial Officer

 

29

 

----
**CERTIFICATION
        OF BANC OF AMERICA COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE INC.**
  Banc
        of
        America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
 Commercial
        Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
 Series
        2005-3 (the “ Trust ”)
  I,
        George
        G. Ellison, certify that:
  1.  I
        have
        reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
        distribution date reports filed in respect of periods included in the year
        covered by this annual report, of the Trust formed pursuant to the Pooling
        and
        Servicing Agreement (the (“ Pooling
        and Servicing Agreement ”)
        dated
        as of July 1, 2005 among Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor,
        Bank of America, N.A., as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, Inc., as Special
        Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator
        and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as Fiscal Agent;
  2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not
        contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
        fact
        necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
        which
        such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period
        covered by this annual report;
  3.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided
        to the Trustee by the Master Servicer and the Special Servicer under the
        Pooling
        and Servicing Agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
        reports;
  4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statements included in the report
        and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance with the terms
        of the
        Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the report, the
        Master Servicer and Special Servicer have fulfilled their obligations under
        the
        Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and
  5.  The
        reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Master Servicer’s
        and Special Servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
        upon each report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting
        a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
        Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
        that is included in these reports.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer,
        LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator, L.J.
        Melody & Company of Texas, LP, as Sub-Servicer, and Keycorp Real Estate
        Capital Markets, Inc., as Sub-Servicer.
  Date:  March
        28,
        2006
  
  /s/
        George G. Ellison
 George
        G.
        Ellison
 Senior
        Vice President
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 25

To express the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal Service

should issue a series of stamps highlighting achievements of young Americans, including Samantha Smith of Manchester, Maine, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 23, 1997

Ms. SNOWE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate that the United States

Postal Service should issue a series of stamps highlighting achievements of young Americans, including

Samantha Smith of Manchester, Maine, and for other

purposes.

1 Whereas the youth of America face more difficult chal2 lenges than ever before, with the lure of gangs, drugs,

3 alcohol, and sex increasing the potential for irrespon4 sible behavior and violence at ever earlier ages;

5 Whereas all too often the media focuses on negative stories

6 about America’s youth;
2

•SRES 25 IS

1 Whereas many young Americans have made extraordinary

2 contributions to their communities and to their coun3 try;

4 Whereas 10-year-old Samantha Smith of Manchester,

5 Maine, wrote to Chairman Yuri Andropov of the So6 viet Union in 1982 urging peace at the height of the

7 Cold War;

8 Whereas Samantha was invited by Chairman Andropov to

9 visit the Soviet Union the following year and became

10 widely recognized as a spokesperson for the cause of

11 peace until her death in a plane crash in 1985; and

12 Whereas America’s young people need positive role models

13 from among their peers: Now, therefore, be it

14 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

15 United States Postal Service should issue a series of post16 age stamps highlighting the extraordinary achievements of

17 young Americans and that a stamp honoring Samantha

18 Smith of Manchester, Maine, should be the first in this

19 series.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

December 7, 2009 

ERRATA

Appeal No. 2009-1087 

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA v. ALPINE ELECTRONICS

Decided: December 4, 2009 Nonprecedential Opinion 

Please make the following change: 

 Page 8 line 21 after “known algorithms even though it did” insert “not”.
#### Mark Russell GALVAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan CZERNIAK, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35499.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 15, 2005.*

Decided July 27, 2005.

Anthony David Bornstein, Esq., FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Hardy Myers, Jr., Esq., Lynn David Larson, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for RespondentAppellee.

Before: RYMER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WEINER,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

We affirm the district court’s denial of Galvan’s habeas petition.

In denying Galvan’s ineffective assistance claim for his counsel’s failure to call two witnesses, the state court did not unreasonably apply, or act contrary to, *Strickland v. Washington.**1***Galvan presented no evidence to the state court of what the two witnesses would have testified to, so he showed no prejudice.

The district court did not err in refusing to expand the record to include the two affidavits from the two witnesses, because they were presented for the first time in federal court, and Galvan had neither presented them in state court nor justified the failure to do so. Galvan has not demonstrated that the affidavits satisfy the exceptions for new evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). We are bound by *Holland v.*Jackson2 as well as Rule 7 of the Rules *580Governing Section 2254 Cases.3

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2

. *Holland v. Jackson,*542 U.S. 649, 124 S.Ct. *5802736, 159 L.Ed.2d 683 (2004).

3

. *See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer,*397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir.2005) (under *Holland,*petitioner must comply with § 2254(e) in order to expand the record under Rule 7).
Exhibit 32
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of Urecoats Industries Inc., that, to his knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Urecoats Industries Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Urecoats Industries Inc.
 
 Date:  November 14, 2003
**URECOATS INDUSTRIES INC.**By:Michael T. AdamsPrincipal Executive Officer
  By:John G. BarbarChief Financial Officer
[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: Annualand monthly SNAP participation rates**
 
Summary | Report
 
SuDoc Number:A 93.73:192
Item Number:0042-V (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959444
 
August 6, 2018
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 29, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ODVA, Inc. (“ODVA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Tocho Marking Systems America, Inc., Torrance, CA; and Guangzhou Zhiyuan Electronics Co., LTD, Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, Rocon L.L.C., Hazel Park, MI; and InterTech Development Company, Skokie, IL, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 2, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38534).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-22255 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
----

Notice concerning the anti-subsidy and anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India: change in the name of a company subject to individual countervailing and anti-dumping duty rates

(2005/C 40/05)

Imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India are subject to a definitive countervailing duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (1) and to a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (2).

The exports to the Community of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film of MTZ Polyesters Limited, a company located in India, are subject to an individual countervailing duty rate of 8,7 % and an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 49,0 %. An undertaking concerning the imports subject to an anti-dumping duty was accepted by Commission Decision 2001/645/EC (3). The company has informed the Commission that it has changed its name to MTZ Polyfilms Limited. The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual countervailing and anti-dumping duty rates nor the right to benefit from the undertaking given by the company under its previous name of MTZ Polyesters Limited.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 and those of Commission Decision 2001/645/EC. Therefore, the reference to MTZ Polyesters Limited should be read as MTZ Polyfilms Limited in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999, in Article 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 and in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2001/645/EC.

The Taric additional code A031 previously attributed to MTZ Polyesters Limited shall apply to MTZ Polyfilms Limited.

----

(1)OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 56.

----
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND 

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 

SAVITT & BRUCE LLP 

1325 Fourth Avenue Suite 1410 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 749-0500 

THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

LISA PENNER, PAUL HAUGH and DARCI 

HAUGH, on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CHASE BANK USA, N.A., and BANK ONE, 

DELAWARE, N.A., 

 Defendants. 

NO. 3:06-cv-05092-FDB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Noted for Hearing: 

June 16, 2006 per Local CR 7(d)(1) 

Case 3:06-cv-05092-FDB Document 25 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND - 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 

SAVITT & BRUCE LLP 

1325 Fourth Avenue Suite 1410 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 749-0500 

WHEREAS, on February 16, 2006 plaintiff Lisa Penner filed this action against defendants 

Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Bank One, Delaware, N.A. (“Defendants”); 

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2006 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Darci 

Haugh and Paul Haugh as Plaintiffs in this action; 

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2006 the Court extended the time by which Defendants may 

plead or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint to and including June 16, 2006; 

WHEREAS, Defense counsel has been on jury duty over the last week and therefore 

requests an additional one week extension to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint. 

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

Case 3:06-cv-05092-FDB Document 25 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND - 2 

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 

SAVITT & BRUCE LLP 

1325 Fourth Avenue Suite 1410 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 749-0500 

NOW THEREFORE, It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties, through their 

respective attorneys, that the time by which Defendants may plead or otherwise respond to the 

operative complaint shall be extended by one week, to and including June 23, 2006. 

Dated: June 16, 2006 SAVITT & BRUCE LLP

By: /s/ James P. Savitt 

James P. Savitt, WSBA No. 16847 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BANK ONE, DELAWARE, N.A. and 

CHASE BANK USA, N.A. 

Dated: June 16, 2006 KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 

By: /s/ Mark A. Griffin 

Mark A. Griffin, WSBA No. 16296 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

LISA PENNER 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED this 28th of June 2006. 

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

A

Case 3:06-cv-05092-FDB Document 25 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3
Abatement Order filed April 28, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00338

- CR

____________ EX PARTE BRIAN F. RO BERTS ,

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 883239

- A



### ABATEMENT ORDER

The record does not contain the trial court’s submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Article 11.072, section 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law when denying application for writ of habeas corpus unless the court denies the application as frivolous

. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 ' 7(a). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appealand direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Ex

parte Enriquez , 227 S.W.3d 779, 784 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of
fact and conclusions of l aw on the denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings
filed with the clerk of this c ourt on or before May 28 , 201 5

. The appeal is abated, treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this c ourt’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this c ourt. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by e ither party.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM