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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11432

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO PEREZ TRUJILLO, also known as Gerardo Perez-Trujillo, also 

known as Gerardo Trujillo Perez, also known as Gerardo Rujillo Perez, also 

known as Perez Gerardo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-246-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Perez 

Trujillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez Trujillo has not filed a response. We have 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11432 Document: 00515002022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2019
No. 18-11432

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-11432 Document: 00515002022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2019
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 413

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the invention of modern air-conditioning

by Dr. Willis H. Carrier on the occasion of its100th anniversary.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 413

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on July 17, 1902, Dr. Willis H. Carrier submitted

designs to a printing plant in Brooklyn, New York, for

equipment to control temperature, humidity, ventilation,

and air quality, marking the birth of modern air conditioning;

Whereas air-conditioning has become an integral technology

enabling the advancement of society through improve-
2

•HCON 413 EH

ments to the Nation’s health and well-being, manufacturing processes, building capacities, research, medical

capabilities, food preservation, art and historical conservation, and general productivity and indoor comfort;

Whereas Dr. Carrier debuted air-conditioning technology for

legislative activity in the House of Representatives Chamber in 1928, and the Senate Chamber in 1929;

Whereas the air-conditioning industry now totals $36 billion

on a global basis and employs more than 700,000 people

in the United States; and

Whereas the year 2002 marks the 100th anniversary of modern air-conditioning: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress honors the invention of

3 modern air-conditioning by Dr. Willis H. Carrier on the

4 occasion of its 100th anniversary.

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Roebling  Financial Corp, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  December  31, 2004 (the
"Report")  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof, we, Frank J. Travea,  III,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and
Janice A. Summers,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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.


A signed  original 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.


/s/ Frank J. Travea, III                        /s/ Janice A. Summers
-------------------------------------           ----------------------
Frank J. Travea, III                            Janice A. Summers
President and Chief Executive Officer           Senior Vice President,
                                                Chief Operating Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer




January 31, 2005
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this 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 GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2021-3  (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. Based on my knowledge and 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 agreements 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 parties:  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Computershare Trust Company, N.A.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    
    the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Financial Officer
#### John Claflin, Appellant, v. W. W. Langford, Appellee.

Division B.

Appeal from Circuit Court, DeSoto county; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

*Forrester &*Burton, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

There being no proof of the service of the appeal herein by recording the entry of appeal thereof in the chancery order book, or otherwise, and the appellee not having appeared voluntarily, and the court being without jurisdiction of the person of the appellee, the appeal is dismissed.

Decision
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION

TELEPHONE CALL

DATE: July 3 1, 2012

SUBJECT: Ventura County A PCD sumps

FROM: Nicole Law

– EPA Region IX, Rules Office

Stanley Tong

– EPA Region IX, Rules Office

TO: Eric Wetherbee

– Ventura County APCD

, Supervisor and Mutual Se ttlement,

Compliance Division ( 805 ) 645

- 1496

SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION:

1. Wemcos are being phased out. There used to be around 12

– 15 Wemcos in Ventura County APCD,

now they are down to 4

– 5.

2. He believes the reason for the reduction in use of Wemcos is because they are labor intensive to

maintain and to keep running. There are concerns with VOC leaks and meeting Rule 74.10 leak limits.

3

. Wemcos are mainly used at larger facilities for routing gases from the vapor recovery process to a

gas p ipeline

.

4. The Anterra facility reinjects the wastewater into a disposal well.

5. He does not recall routinely having mg/L data unless Ventura County APCD specifically asks for it.

6. Roughly 90

– 95% of their facilities have no treatment systems fo r the oil production wastewater.

The facilities just have a wash tank and the water is either trucked to a disposal site or reinjected into the

ground.
[No. 18570-9-II.

Division Two.

August 23, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Dana Royal, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-1-00275-9, Robert L. Harris, J., entered July 15, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Bridgewa-ter, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4981

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TIMOTHY DOWELL, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-04-65) Submitted: July 13, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Just as we noted in United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 545 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005), “[w]e of course offer no criticism of the district judge, who followed the law and procedure in effect at the time” of Dowell’s sentencing. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Dowell, Sr. was convicted of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Dowell appeals, contending that the district court improperly sentenced him when it attributed a drug quantity to him greater than found by the jury. Dowell does not challenge his conviction. He preserved the sentencing issue for appeal by raising it in the district court. We affirm Dowell’s conviction but vacate and remand for resentencing. In United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court concluded that the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the judge by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 746, 750. In light of Booker , we vacate Dowell’s sentence and remand the case for resentencing. * Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, Bookermakes clear that a sentencing court must still “consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” 125 S. Ct. at 767. On remand, the district court should first determine the appropriate sentencing range under the Guidelines, making all factual findings appropriate- 3 - for that determination. See United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005) (applying Booker on plain error review). The court should consider this sentencing range along with the other factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and then impose a sentence. Id. If that sentence falls outside the Guidelines range, the court should explain its reasons for the departure as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (2000). Id. The sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” Id. at 546-47. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
[No. 37193-2-I.

Division One.

July 29, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Chad Scott Richardson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-8-02735-2, Norma Smith Huggins, J., entered July 24,1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of JER Investors Trust Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Joseph E. Robert, Jr. , as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Tae-Sik
Yoon, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each of their 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.



By:

/s/    JOSEPH E. ROBERT,
JR.Name:

Joseph E. Robert, Jr.Title:

Chairman of the BoardChief Executive OfficerDate: May 11, 2006




By:

/s/    TAE-SIK
YOONName:

Tae-Sik YoonTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 11, 2006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

October 31, 2011

Mr. Eric Stevenson

Director of Technical Services

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

939 Ellis Street

San Francisco, California 94109

Dear Mr. Stevenson:

Thank you for your timely submission of the 2010 Air Monitoring Network Report, finalized July 1, 

2011. We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it is complete, informative, very 

detailed and meets all of the requirements for annual network plans as required by our regulations set 

forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves as official approval of the annual network plan, 

it does not constitute approval of the system modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future. 

We will continue to work with your district to review system changes as they proceed.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (415) 972-3851 or Gwen 

Yoshimura at (415) 947-4134.

Sincerely,

/s/

Matthew Lakin, Manager

Air Quality Analysis Office

Air Division

Enclosure

cc: Glen Colwell, BAAQMD

Karen Magliano, ARB 
Comments on Bay Area AQMD’s 2010 Air Monitoring Network Report (finalized July 1, 2011)

Please update next year’s annual network plan to reflect the following comments:

Minimum Monitoring Requirement for PM10: The minimum number of PM10 monitors is based 

on concentration, rather than the number of exceedances, per Table D-4 in 40 CFR Part 58 

Appendix D. The Design Value column in Table 5, page 15, should reflect the 24-hour PM10

ambient concentration as stated in Table D-4 of 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. For example, the 

maximum concentration over a three year period within the MSA could be used. It appears that 

BAAQMD is meeting the minimum monitoring requirements, however, future monitoring 

network plans should be reflect the metric indicated in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D.

Monitors within Bay Area MSAs, run by other agencies: In the minimum monitoring 

requirement tables, the “Number of Monitors Active” numbers appear to include monitors that 

are not run by BAAQMD, but are within the Bay Area MSAs. When totals include monitors 

that are run by other agencies, please asterisk the totals and indicate how many of the monitors 

are run by BAAQMD.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark A. BATTISA.

No. 86-KK-0805.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, prohibition and mandamus; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 6599-85; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. K86-215.

Denied.

MARCUS, LEMMON and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

GMHCOMMUNITIES TRUST

 

CERTIFICATIONSREQUIRED BYRULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

----

 

                I,Gary M. Holloway, Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer of GMH CommunitiesTrust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”), hereby certifythat, to my knowledge:

 

                (1)           The Company’s periodic report on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

                (2)           The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

*              *              *

 

 

 

 
| /s/ GARY M.  HOLLOWAY, SR.             |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Gary M. Holloway, Sr.                  |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

 

Date: December 15, 2004

 

----
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1037 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 00 8 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
955 Jefferson Ave.

Valley Forge Corporate Center

Norristown, PA 19403

- 2497

April 19, 2013

Scott Baker

Sr. Business Solutions Analyst

Bakers1@pjm.com

(610) 666

- 2235

VIA EMAIL

U.S. Department of Energy

Email: expartecommunications@hq.d oe.gov

RE: Ex Parte Communication, Docket EERE

- 2012

- BT

- STD

- 0022

To whom it may concern,

On April 19, 2013, representatives from PJM Interconnection LLC and the National

Rural Electric Cooperatives Association held a phone call with members of the Depa rtment of

Energy’s General Counsel and Building Technologies offices to discuss legal and procedural

questions related to the docket referenced pertaining to residential electric storage water heaters.

The purpose of this meeting was to gain clarity on the statutory authorities the

Department was exercising to grant a waiver as proposed in the NOPR issued February 26, 2013

(Federal Register, vol. 78, no. 38) and to further understand the basis for some of the stipulations

enumerated in the NOPR.

Si ncerely,

/s/ Scott Baker

Attached below: List of attendees

610.666.8980 | www.pjm.com955 Jefferson Ave.

Valley Forge Corporate Center

Norristown, PA 19403

- 2497

Attendees:

Name Organization

Ari Altman Department of Energy

Ashley Armstrong Department of Energy

Scott Baker PJM Interconnection

Dan Cohen Department of Energy

John Cymbalsky Departmen t of Energy

Craig Glazer PJM Interconnection

Jay Morrison NRECA

610.666.8980 | www.pjm.com
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Peers, ChiefFinancial 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, thatto my knowledge:

 

1.                 The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date: May 10, 2010

 
| /s/ JAMES A. PEERS        |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| James A. Peers            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

* *

----