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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:12-cr-181-7

Jesus Padilla 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 290) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute

marijuana, a lesser included offense of Count 3 of the second

superseding indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty of that

offense. The court will defer the decision of whether to accept

the plea agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: March 24, 2015 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00181-JLG Doc #: 292 Filed: 03/24/15 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 32.2



SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

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 SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph T. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and



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



By:

/s/ Joseph T. MorrisJoseph T. MorrisChief Financial Officer




November 14, 2005
No. 59154.

protest 237355-K (New York).

#### Siber Hegner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
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 First National Banc, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, Roscoe H. Mullis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David G. Moffat, President and Chief Operating Officer, do hereby 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 our knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



|    |  |                                             
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------
|By: |  |                                             
|    | 
|    |  | /s/ Roscoe H. Mullis                        
|    |  | Roscoe H. Mullis                            
|    |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer        
|    |  | November 14, 2004                           
|    | 
|    |  | /s/ David G. Moffat                         
|    |  | David G. Moffat                             
|    |  | President and Chief Operating Officer       
|    |  | (principal financial and accounting officer)
|    |  | November 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                            9569
<SECURITIES>                                     45111
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8320
<ALLOWANCES>                                       182
<INVENTORY>                                      11736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 75389
<PP&E>                                           68591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   50795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  123807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                       75706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    123807
<SALES>                                          24853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24853
<CGS>                                            17517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2516
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2506
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2506
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Gi Hoon Joung, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mirae Corporation;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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 company, 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
company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 16, 2007



/s/ Gi Hoon JoungName:

Gi Hoon JoungTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40562 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDY O’NEIL DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CR-76-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Randy O’Neil Davi s appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute.

Davis argues that the Government breached a promise as to the

quantity of drugs or the l ength of Davis’ sentence. Davis also

challenges the amount of drugs attributable to him and the finding

that he was a leader or organizer.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and AFFIRM

the district court. Davis has failed to prove the underlying facts

establishing a promise and breach by a preponderance of theevidence. U nited State s v. Price , 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir.

1996). Davis is responsible for the amount of drugs sold by

codefendant Michael Issac because those sales were part of the same
course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count

of conviction. U nited St ates v. Bryant , 991 F.2d 171, 177 (5th

Cir. 1993). We note that Davis was not held accountable for any

drugs sold by codefendant Christopher Levias. Even if the district

court erred in including the drugs found in Timothy Davis’

possession, the error is harmless as Davis’ base offense level

would remain unchanged. Finally, the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Davis was an organizer or leader with

respect to Issac and Levias given the evidence in the record that

they b oth worked for Davis. U nited States v. Valencia
, 44 F.3d

269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Paul Campanella to: HelmesT 11/20/2012 03:09 PM Cc: John Schaeffer

Tucker, We have some answers for you on the proposed testing. Dr Lin has reviewed the information you sent . His analysis, which agrees with your assertions regarding the chemical, is included below:

" A s COPS-1 is a salt, achieving 99% purity is not feasible. It would require commercial recrystallization units which are costly to purchase and the energy cost of running it on a commercial scale cost prohibitive for industrial uses. It would also require specialized dry handling capabilities at the polymerization step. This makes no sense when the sole use of the COPS-I is to further polymerization reactions into aqueous polymers. In this case, the manufacture of dry monomer does not seem relevant to the exposure component of risk assessment." EPA agrees with this argument and concludes that we agree to drop the testing needs for A1,A2, A3, A4 and A5. We also accept the assertion that water solubility should be reported as > 40%.

I believe that Dr. Boethling has accepted your approach for the Biodegradation testing and I have previously sent you approval for the Toxicity testing ( pdf of Contractor report that was approved by EPA).

Since we agree with the COPS-1 Consortium that a 99% level of purity of 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1) is unattainable for the “typical commercial product” that is proposed for testing, the Consortium must request a modification ( see 76 FR 65395 ).

For all toxicity tests

, the final study report should include the analyzed composition of the test substance

, including identities and concentrations of major ingredients and of impurities

. As a reminder , the original study plan that you submitted was a very attenuated version and not at all typical of a study plan that includes the methodology and credentials of the laboratory doing the testing . I assume you are aware of that weakness and that the final study reports will include all of the usual requirements that will allow the reviewers to adequately assess the results.

I suggest you submit a modification to the study plan to the DCO ASAP and, send it to me as a PDf at the same time so we can give it a an expedited review. I expect that if it is short and clear we can give you an answer quickly as everyone here is sensitive to the time issue for starting testing. I will be here in the office tomorrow.

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D. Chemical Information and Testing Branch Chemical Control DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y Washington, D.C. 202-564-8091

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D. Chemical Information and Testing Branch Chemical Control Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 202-564-8091
Exhibit 32.2



TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Each
of the undersigned officers of Tampa Electric Company (the Company) certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ S. W. HUDSON       
|                        |  | S. W. HUDSON           
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Dated: November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ G. L. GILLETTE     
|                        |  | G. L. GILLETTE         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer



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 required by Section 906, 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 certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the
Form 10-Q.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LUIS TORRES-MARQUEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50234 

D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00877-BAS-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Torres-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* 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 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-50234 

Torres-Marquez contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the court did not give adequate weight to his argument that his offense 

behavior was motivated by economic desperation, and gave too much weight to his 

dated criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and 

the totality of the circumstances, including the length of the sentences TorresMarquez received for his prior illegal reentry offenses, his non-immigration

criminal history, and his 24 deportations prior to the commission of the instant 

offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 

F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a 

particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Tracy A. Dixon, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bainbridge Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bainbridge Bancshares, Inc. forthe quarter ended September 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 coveredby this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure 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 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 15, 2004
Before the Second Division,

December 15, 1948

No. 52739. —

protests 518722-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. & E. Stirn et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any error in the action of the collector, the protests were overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
TEXACO INC.'S THIRD QUARTER 1998 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             250
<SECURITIES>                                        35
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                      1,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,394
<PP&E>                                          35,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,019
<BONDS>                                          6,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        656
<COMMON>                                         1,705
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,495
<SALES>                                         23,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,898
<CGS>                                           17,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                       258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       816
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

</TABLE>