alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 15,124.

#### UNITED STATES v. FLYNN.

[1 Dill. 451.] 1

Circuit Court. D. Minnesota.

1870.

Criminal Law—Sale of Liquor to Indians.

Under the act of congress of March 15, 1864 (13 Stat. 29). prohibiting the sale of liquor to any Indian under charge of an Indian agent, actual control, or immediate personal superintendence by such agent over the individual Indian to whom the liquor is sold, is not essential, if the tribe to which the Indian belongs is under the charge of such agent, and the Indian himself still maintains his tribal relations.

It is provided by the act of congress of the 15th day of March, 1864 (13 Stat. 29), that “if any person shall sell * * * or dispose of any spirituous liquors to any Indian, under the charge of any Indian superintendent, or Indian agent appointed by the United States,” he shall be punished, etc., as provided by the act. Legislation of this character has been held by the supreme court of the United States, to be constitutional, and authorized by the power of congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. U. S. v. Holli-day, 3 Wall. [70 U. S.] 407; U. S. v. Haas, Id. The evidence shows that the Indian named in the indictment belongs to one of the bands of the Chippewa tribe of Indians, residing in the state of Minnesota; that the Indian to whom the liquor was sold still maintains his tribal relations, and receives his annuities from the United States; that the tribe to which the Indian belongs is regularly under the charge of an agent appointed by the United States. But the evidence also shows that the Indian named in the indictment has not for two years, or thereabouts, resided on the reservation occupied by the tribe, but has been for that period living away from the tribe, and off the reservation. Under these facts, the question arises whether the Indian named was, within the meaning of the act of congress “under the charge of an Indian agent” at the time when the liquor is alleged to have been sold to him.

C. K. Davis, U. S. Dist Atty.

Mr. Heard, contra.

Before DILLON, Circuit Judge, and NELSON, District Judge.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John F. Dillon, Circuit Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

PER CURIAM.

It was held upon these facts, that the Indian to whom the liquor was sold was under charge of an Indian agent within the meaning of the act of congress, and that actual charge and immediate personal superintendence over the individual Indian by the agent, at the time, was not essential to maintain the indictment. This conclusion was considered to be supported by the nature of the previous legislation on the same subject; by the policy of such legislation as declared in the cases above referred to ([U. S. v. Holliday and U. S. v. Haas] 3 Wall. [70 U. S.] 407). and by the principles settled by the decisions in those cases.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of REVA Medical, 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 periods 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 our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our
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.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and 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 control 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 control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Katrina ThompsonKatrina ThompsonChief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
No. 46239.

#### Protests 922637-G/87422, etc., of Cargill Grain Co. of Illinois et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 35.1




SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT






I, Alyson M. Mount, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), certify that:




(a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Storm Recovery Property Servicing Agreement dated as of August 18, 2010 between Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.




(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.






Date: March 28, 2014




Entergy Arkansas, Inc., as servicer




By:/s/ Alyson M. Mount




Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CARLOS ANTONIO CASTILLO-ROJO, 

AKA Carlos Castillo-Rojo, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10173 

D.C. No. 4:18-cr-02600-RM-DTF-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Carlos Antonio Castillo-Rojo appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a 

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Castillo-Rojo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are 

* 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

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10173 

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We 

have provided Castillo-Rojo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No 

pro se supplemental brief or 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. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### Melvin Briant, *Respondent, v.*Charles I. Holbrook, *Appel*lant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD D. LEONARD, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:09-CV-961

JUDGE MARBLEY

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

REHABILITATION

AND CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

RONALD D. LEONARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-347

JUDGE MARBLEY

ERNIE MOORE, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________

RONALD D. LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-951

JUDGE MARBLEY

ERNIE MOORE, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

ORDER

On December 10, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and

Recommendation addressing several motions in these consolidated cases. The Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-00951-ALM-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 01/12/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
recommended that Plaintiff Leondard’s Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. No. 48 in 2:09-CV961, be denied since Defendants Knab and Collins have filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

See Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 50 in 2:09-CV-961. 

There have been no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly,

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 50 in 2:09-CV-961, Doc. No. 9

in 2:09-CV-347, Doc. No. 14 in 2:10-CV-951, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. No. 48 in 2:09-CV-961 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/12/2011 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

DATE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:10-cv-00951-ALM-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 01/12/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L.
Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 8, 2008



By:

/s/ TRACEY L. STOCKWELLTracey L. StockwellTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




31
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. FRANK W. MOMINEE, Corporal, U. S. Army, Appellant

6 USCMA 179, 19 CMR 305

No. 6521

Decided July 22, 1955

*Major Edwin Doran*and *First Lieutenant Jerome H. Gerber*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton*and *First Lieutenant A. Kenneth Pye*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam:

A general court-martial sitting at Camp Stewart, Georgia, found the accused, Mominee, guilty of desertion *180terminated by apprehension, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 85, 50 USC § 679. We granted review to determine whether the finding of apprehension was supported by sufficient evidence.

Since the proof here was even stronger than that relied on by the Government in United States v. Simone, 6 USCMA 146, 19 CMR 272, and United States v. Lugo, 6 USCMA 151, 19 CMR 277 — and was wholly uncontroverted by the defense — we must hold, in accordance with our decisions in those cases, that the prosecution safely met its burden of proof.

Therefore, the findings and sentence, as approved by intermediate appellate authorities, must be affirmed.
Case Wo. 14,542.

#### UNITED STATES v. BATES.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 1.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1810.

Forgery — Draft —Right to Draw — Witness— Drawee.

1. The drawee of a forged draft is a competent witness to support the prosecution.

[Followed in U. S. v. Brown, Case No. 14.658. Cited in U. S. v. Anderson, Id. 14,452.]

2. To support an indictment for forgery, under the Maryland statute of 1799, c. 75. § 2, it is not necessary that the drawer should have a right to draw, or that the draft should purport to be by a person having a right to draw.

[Cited in U. S. v. Book, Case No. 14.624.]

Indictment under the act of assembly of ¡ Maryland of 1799, c. 75, § 2, for forging a *'■*draft upon Gustavus Higden. with intent to defraud him. ■

Higden was offered as a witness on the ; part of the United States. He had paid the I order.

Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Baleh. and Mr. Sprigg, 1 for prisoner

[William Bates], cited Peake, ; 'Ey. 96, 97.

But THE COURT (THRUSTON. Circuit j Judge, absent), permitted the witness to be sworn and examined.

Verdict. “Guilty.”

Motion in arrest of judgment, because it is not averred in the indictment that Arnol had a right to draw. 2 East, P. C. 936; Mitchell’s Case, anno 1754, upon the act of 7 Geo. II. c. 22; the words of which are like those of the act of Maryland, except that it has not these words, which are in the Maryland act, “Or draught for the payment of money, or delivery of goods, or other valuable articles.”

The order, or draft, was in these words: “Washington City, Jan’y 12, 1810. Mr. Hig-den — Sir, you will please let the bearer, James Gray, have 3% dollars' worth out of your store, and oblige, Sir, your most obed’t serv’t, William Arnol.”

THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent, but concurring,)

was of opinion that the word “draught,” in the act of assembly of Maryland, which was not in the English statute, made a difference; and that a draft might be made by a person who had no right to draw.

The sentence of the court was twenty stripes.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

said that it was the first case under this act of assembly which had come before the court; and perhaps there was some ground to doubt whether the case was strictly within it, as explained by the English authorities. For these reasons, the court inflicted a lighter punishment than they would otherwise have done.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8473 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8473

 To direct the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress a report in 
  the event that the assessment of the Army force structure using the 
   process known as ``Total Army Analysis'' does not include certain 
                               missions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2024

 Mr. Crawford (for himself and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress a report in 
  the event that the assessment of the Army force structure using the 
   process known as ``Total Army Analysis'' does not include certain 
                               missions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Total Army 
Analysis Explosive Ordnance Disposal Domestic Response Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MISSIONS IN TOTAL ARMY ANALYSIS.

    (a) Reporting Requirement.--If the Army conducts an assessment of 
the Army force structure using the process known as ``Total Army 
Analysis'' and such assessment does not include each covered mission, 
the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a report that 
includes--
            (1) an explanation for excluding the covered mission in the 
        assessment; and
            (2) an analysis of the risk assumed to the homeland by 
        reason of excluding the covered mission.
    (b) Covered Missions.--In this section, a covered mission is any of 
the following:
            (1) A Defense Support of Civil Authorities mission.
            (2) A Very Important Personnel Protection Support Activity 
        mission.
            (3) Any forces required for a mission referred to in 
        paragraph (1) or (2).
    (c) Effective Date.--The requirement to submit reports under 
subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 2:10-cv-01180-ALM-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/25/11 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01180-ALM-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/25/11 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T11:03:03-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**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 Boston Omaha Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge: 

 

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.
Case No. 6,411.

#### In re GILBERT et al.

[1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 327.]

District Court, N. D. New York.

1843.

Bankruptcy — Partnership.

It is too late after parties have been declared bankrupts as partners, to allow objections to be filed disputing their being part-' ners at the time of their application.

One of the objections to the discharge in this case was, that the bankrupts [Gilbert and Lamphier], who had petitioned for the benefit of the act as partners in trade, as such had been decreed bankrupts without objection on this ground, were not in fact part*345ners at the time of their application, but had •ceased to be such several years before. Depositions had been taken in support of other ■objections, and also of this: and there was strons evidence tending to show that the bankrupts were-not entitled in law to be considered partners at the time of their application.

Mr. Myers, for bankrupts.

Mr. Newton, for creditors.

■ GONKLING, District Judge.

It is too late to urge this objection. The question, whether the petitioners were partners, was directly involved in their application to be declared bankrupts. In their petition they averred that they were so, and no one appeared to contest the fact. They were therefore adjudged to be so, and were declared bankrupts accordingly, and the point must now be considered as settled. Besides, it would be highly mischievous, after a decree of bankruptcy has been entered, and the effects of the petitioners have gone into the hands of the assignee, and been wholly or in part converted into money, to allow objections which, if they should prevail, would render the whole proceeding void.
Exhibit
      32.2





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 Sub-Urban Brands, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Jack
      Mott, the Chief Financial Officer of Sub-Urban Brands, Inc., does 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) 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 the results of operations of the Company as of
      and
      for the periods covered by the Report.




Dated:
                May 21, 2007/s/
                 Jack MottChief
                Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Cardigant Medical Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerett Creed, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(a)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2012
/s/ Jerett Creed
Jerett Creed

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)