alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chesko, Appellant, *v. Steinbaugh.*

*83Argued March 18, 1989.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Joseph W. Conway,*with him *8uto, Power, Balgarini & Walsh,*for appellant.

*Richard D. Klaber,*with him *Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is an appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, entered after the jury had returned a verdict for defendant and the lower Court had dismissed plaintiff’s motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial.

This personal injury action grew out of a collision between two boats on the Connequenessing Creek in Beaver County. The plaintiff, Helen Marie Chesko, was a passenger in a boat owned and operated by Fred Fusco. At the time the accident occurred, Fusco was driving his boat upstream in a westerly direction. The defendant, operating his own boat, was coming down the Creek in the opposite direction. At the point where the collision took place, Connequenessing Creek is approximately 100 yards wide, and flows from west to east. Neither party challenges or disputes the aforesaid facts. However, the precise place or spot on the *84Creek, and the exact manner in which the accident occurred when the two boats collided were issues which were hotly contested by the parties.

The. applicable legal test when a motion for a new trial is denied was recently reiterated in *Cwiakala v. Paal,*427 Pa. 322, 324, 235 A. 2d 145: “The test before this Court is well settled: where a new trial is refused or granted, an Appellate Court will reverse only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case, [citing seven recent Supreme Court cases].”

In *Hummel v. Womeldorf,*426 Pa. 460, 464, 233 A. 2d 215, the Court said that “It no longer requires any citation of authority to sustain the proposition that a new trial will not be granted because of a mere conflict in testimony, or because a trial judge or appellate tribunal would have arrived at a different conclusion.”

The trial Judge, who saw and heard the Avitnesses, concluded that the credible evidence presented in this case Avas sufficient to support the jury’s verdict for the defendant, and that there was no reason to grant a new trial.’ We further note that the trial Judge ably and correctly charged the jury on the applicable points of law. Accordingly, we find there was no abuse of discretion or error of law.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Gary R. Holland, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the AnnualReport of Fargo Electronics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Fargo Electronics, Inc.

 

 
| March 15,  2004 |                            |                      |
|-----------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------|
|            |                            |                      |
|            |                            |
|            | By:                             | /s/  GARY R. HOLLAND |   |
|            | Name: Gary  R. Holland          |
|            | Title: Chief  Executive Officer |                      |
|                 |                                 |                           |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FargoElectronics, Inc. and will be retained by Fargo Electronics, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Bruce M. McWilliams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Bruce M. McWilliams              
|Bruce M. McWilliams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 8, 2007                     

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q
for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Charles A. Webster, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Charles A. Webster                              
|Charles A. Webster                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 8, 2007                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Alphonsine Mertain.

— Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Before the Third Division,

November 15, 1948

No. 52678.

petition 6626-R (Mobile).

#### Coyle-McMorries Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
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  Annual  Report  of  Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc.(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December  31, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
---------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
October 1, 2004

     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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 31.1
  Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function
 of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)




SERVICER CERTIFICATION






I, Mark Kaczynski, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2010-A (the “Exchange Act Periodic Reports”);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;




4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement (as defined in the related indenture), as amended, in all material respects; and




5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:  U.S. Bank National Association.




Date:      June 15, 2012




By:    /s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the


servicing function)
AMENDMENT
                                    ---------
                                       TO
                                       --
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                       ----------------------------------
                                       OF
                                       --
                      RIO VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P.
                      ------------------------------------

1.   The name of the Limited Partnership is RIO VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P.

2.   The address of the General Partner is hereby changed to:

                          820 GESSNER ROAD, SUITE 1285
                                HOUSTON, TX 77024

     It is declared that the undersigned General Partner executed this Amendment
to Certificate of Limited Partnership as its act and deed.

     Dated as of August 20, 2003

                                        RIO VISTA OPERATING GP LLC,
                                        the sole general partner


                                        By:  /s/ Ian T. Bothwell
                                           ----------------------
                                             Ian T. Bothwell, Treasurer
                                             Authorized Officer


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. SAMUEL LUGO, Private E-2, U. S. Army, Appellant

6 USCMA 151, 19 CMR 277

No. 6200

Decided July 1, 1955

*Captain Albert C. Malone, Jr.,*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Edivard Duvall*and *First Lieutenant Anthony R. DeSanto.*

*Lieutenant Colonel Andrew D. Kane*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton*and *First Lieutenant A. Kenneth Pye.*

Opinion of the Court

Paul W. Brosman, Judge:

Following his trial by general court-martial, the accused in this case was found guilty of desertion, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 85, 50 USC § 679. The issue now before us has to do with no more than the sufficiency of the record to support the court-martial’s finding of apprehension. As to this, we are controlled by our opinion in United States v. Simone, 6 USCMA 146, 19 CMR 272, decided this day, which holds that, under present Army Regulations, a proper morning report entry recording the fact that an accused’s absence was terminated in that manner is both admissible and sufficient to sustain such a finding.

The findings of guilty and the decision of the board of review must be, and are hereby, affirmed.

Chief Judge QUINN and Judge LATI-MER concur.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH W. ACKER, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

9 USCMA 80, 25 CMR 342

No. 10,920

Decided March 28, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieh*and *Captain Richard C. Bochen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Major Carl Goldschlager*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homek Ferguson, Judge:

Our grant of review in this case was limited to a consideration of the sufficiency of the advice contained in the post-trial review. Although he had pleaded not guilty, the accused was convicted of four separate assaults, which were charged as violations of either Article 128 or Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934. In his review, the staff judge advocate summarized in detail the evidence which had been presented at trial on behalf of both the prosecution and the defense. In a section of the review entitled “Sufficiency of the Evidence,” he extensively analyzed the evidence as to each offense which had been previously discussed. He concluded the individual analysis of each offense with such statements as:

> “. . . Thus the finding of guilty as to each specification, insofar as the offenses of assault and battery are concerned, is correct. . . Thus the findings of guilty to specifications 1 and 2 of charge I are fully supported by the evidence.

> “. . . Thus upon a determination by the court that the accused at the time of the offense was legally responsible for his acts, their further determination that he was guilty of assault and battery by grabbing Miss Meckel was proper.

> 

> “. . . Based upon the whole evidence of record it cannot be said that the court erred in determining that at the time of this assault the accused was aware of the fact that he was dealing with a commissioned officer.”

These conclusions are correct as far as they pertain to the reviewer’s consideration of the *legal*sufficiency of the evidence. On the issue of *factual*sufficiency, however, the review is incomplete. There is no indication that the staff judge advocate was convinced *81of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the review failed to advise the convening authority that in order to approve the court’s findings he too must be convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is in these respects that the review is deficient. United States v Grice, 8 USCMA 166, 23 CMR 390; United States v Fields, 9 USCMA 70, 25 CMR 332; United States v Howes, 9 USCMA 78, 25 CMR 340.

The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submittal to the convening authority for further proceedings in conformity with Articles 61 and 64 of the Code, supra, 10 USC §§ 861 and 864.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

My reasons for so doing are expressed in my separate opinion in United States v Fields, 9 USCMA 70, 25 CMR 332.
No. 41858.

#### Protest 978557-G of Irving W. Rice Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers and perfume sprays in question are similar to those the subject of *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373). The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASIMIRO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71948 

Agency No. A209-798-701 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Casimiro Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

* 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

DEC 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71948 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de 

novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 

2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Ramirez’s motion 

to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where his asserted 

basis for failing to attend his hearing is that he misread the hearing date. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Thus, RamirezRamirez has not established that the IJ or BIA violated his right to due process by 

denying the motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 

2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise 

erred in its analysis fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 

597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency adequately considered evidence and

sufficiently announced its decision). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5882]



[[Page 15158]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1420-BJ-TRST; Group No. 174, Wisconsin]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plat of survey; Wisconsin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calender days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. The lands we surveyed are:

Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin

T. 40 N., R. 7 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the north boundary, (Fourth Standard Parallel North) a 
portion of the east boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional 
lines; and the survey of the subdivision of sections 5-7, 16-20 and 
26-36, Township 40 North, Range 7 West, of the Fourth Principal 
Meridian, Wisconsin.

    If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the 
plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing 
pending our consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: March 22, 2007.
Jerry L. Wahl,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Acting.
 [FR Doc. E7-5882 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
Before the First Division,

April 30, 1945

No. 50151.

#### Petition 6421-R of H. R. Lockwood (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that following a request of the appraiser for information concerning the dutiable value of the merchandise an amended entry was prepared, but due to the volume of entries being made at the time, the amendment was inadvertently attached to a set of documents not pertinent to the instant case. When the error was discovered, the entry had 'been passed by the appraiser so the amendment had the legal effect of being untimely. It was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found on final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.