alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TOWN OF KEARNY, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, ETC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued February 14, 1949

Decided February 21, 1949.

*Mr. Joseph L. Lippman,*argued the cause for the prosecutor-appellant *(Mr. Louis J. Miller,*attorney; *Mr. Herbert H. Fine,*on the brief).

*Mr. William H. Speer*argued the cause for the defendants-respondents *(Mr. Joseph V. Suter,*attorney).

Per Curiam.

The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Wachenfeld in the former Supreme Court.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Oliphant, Burling, and Ackerson—5.

*For reversal:*None.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1875

To designate the United States courthouse in Medford, Oregon, as the ‘‘James

A. Redden Federal Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse in Medford,

Oregon, as the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse at 310 West Sixth

5 Street in Medford, Oregon, shall be known and designated

6 as the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Courthouse’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed
2

S 1875 IS

1 to be a reference to the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Court2 house’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 12

FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION

(A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Merrill Lynch
Bank & Trust Co., FSB)

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ----------------------- | - |  | ------------ | ----- | - | ------------ | - | ----- | - |  | - | ----- | -
|                 |  | Three MonthsEndedJune 30,                         |  |   | Six MonthsEndedJune 30, |  
|($ in thousands) |  | June 27,2008                                      |  |   | June 30,2007            |   |  | June 27,2008 |       |   | June 30,2007 |  
|I.               |  | Earnings:                                         |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|                 |  | Net income                                        |  | $ | 4,048                   |   |  | $            | 4,911 |   |              | $ | 8,623 |   |  | $ | 9,828 |  
|                 |  | Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends |  |   |                        |   |  |              |      |   |              |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|                 |  | Earnings before fixed charges                     |  | $ | 4,048                   |   |  | $            | 4,911 |   |              | $ | 8,623 |   |  | $ | 9,828 |  
|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|II.              |  | Fixed charges:                                    |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|                 |  | Preferred stock dividends                         |  | $ | 2,507                   |   |  | $            | 3,541 |   |              | $ | 5,062 |   |  | $ | 7,104 |  
|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                        
|III.             |  | Ratios of earnings to fixed charges               |  |   | 1.61                    | x |  |              | 1.39  | x |              |   | 1.70  | x |  |   | 1.38  | x
|                 |  |                                                   |  |   |                         |   |  |              |       |   |              |   |       |   |  |   |       |
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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Herpich,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Mark A. HerpichMark
      A. HerpichChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      13, 2009
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 09 - 00293 - CR

WILLIAM YORK APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A jury convicted Appellant William York of theft of property under $1,500 after having been previously convicted of theft two or more times

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Vernon 2003)

. The jury assessed his punishment at one year and 364 day s ’ confinement , and t he trial cou rt sentenced him accordingly.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

York ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This court afforded York the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has filed one

. The State has also filed a bri ef. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record , counsel’s brief , York’s pro se brief,

a nd the State’s brief

. W e agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, J

. ; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).3

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: January 6, 2011
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Cal Bay International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger E. Pawson, Chief
Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer
(or equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Roger E. Pawson
                              -------------------------
                              Roger E. Pawson
                              Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                              September 8, 2006
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Willis H. Newton, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing 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 ensurethat 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 controlsand 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 internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, 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 ofthe 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. 

 

Date: May 6, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JERRY LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant,

No. 16-10074

D.C. No. 2:15-CR-00696-DJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017** 

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jerry Lopez challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens within the United States,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (a)(1)(B)(i). We have

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

FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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). 
The government argues that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis of

the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. In light of the district court’s

ambiguous statement regarding the scope of the waiver during the plea colloquy,

we decline to dismiss. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N); United States v.

Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Lopez contends that the district court erred by increasing his offense level

under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) upon finding that he recklessly created a substantial

risk of death or serious bodily injury in the course of his offense. He argues that

the court was required to find the facts supporting the enhancement by clear and

convincing evidence and such evidence was lacking. The undisputed facts showed

that Lopez transported three individuals in the trunk of his sedan, two individuals

were in the trunk for approximately two hours, and the trunk was cramped with no

fresh or cool air. Two of the individuals stated they feared for their safety, and one

explained she was short of breath. We need not resolve what evidentiary standard

the district court should have applied because, under any standard, these facts were

sufficient to support the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 cmt. n.5 (2015)

(“transporting persons in the trunk . . . of a motor vehicle” example of conduct

warranting increase); United States v. Bernardo, 818 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED. 

2 16-10074
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned
President and chief executive officer of First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                         |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 2, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ JAMES J. BAUMBERGER
|                     |  |  |  | Name:                   |  | James J. Baumberger                  
|                     |  |  |  | Title:                  |  | President and chief executive officer
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 EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gerald O. Hatler, Chief Executive Officer, 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 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/ Gerald O. Hatler                 
|Gerald O. Hatler                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2008
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1903

To designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, that

replaces the bridge on Missouri highway 74 spanning from East Cape

Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ‘‘Bill Emerson

Memorial Bridge’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 1996

Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. LOTT, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. SMITH, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.

COATS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. GREGG, Mr.

SIMON, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BROWN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. KYL, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. MACK, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. THURMOND, and Mr. ROBB) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third

time, and passed

A BILL

To designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the

year 2000, that replaces the bridge on Missouri highway

74 spanning from East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape

Girardeau, Missouri, as the ‘‘Bill Emerson Memorial

Bridge’’, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BILL EMERSON BRIDGE.

4 The bridge, estimated to be completed in the year

5 2000, that replaces the bridge on highway 74 spanning
2

•S 1903 CPS

1 from East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, to Cape Girardeau,

2 Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Bill Em3 erson Memorial Bridge’’.

4 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

5 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

6 paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge

7 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

8 to the ‘‘Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge’’.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1981

To establish a Joint United States-Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef

to identify, and recommend means of resolving, national, regional, and

provincial trade-distorting differences between the countries with respect

to the production, processing, and sale of cattle and beef, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 22, 1996

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To establish a Joint United States-Canada Commission on

Cattle and Beef to identify, and recommend means of

resolving, national, regional, and provincial trade-distorting differences between the countries with respect to

the production, processing, and sale of cattle and beef,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. JOINT UNITED STATES-CANADA COMMISSION

4 ON CATTLE AND BEEF.

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a Joint

6 United States-Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef to
2

•S 1981 IS

1 identify, and recommend means of resolving, national, re2 gional, and provincial trade-distorting differences between

3 the United States and Canada with respect to the produc4 tion, processing, and sale of cattle and beef, with particu5 lar emphasis on—

6 (1) animal health requirements;

7 (2) transportation differences;

8 (3) the availability of feed grains; and

9 (4) other market-distorting direct and indirect

10 subsidies.

11 (b) COMPOSITION.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall be

13 composed of—

14 (A) 3 members representing the United

15 States, including—

16 (i) 1 member appointed by the Major17 ity Leader of the Senate;

18 (ii) 1 member appointed by the

19 Speaker of the House of Representatives;

20 and

21 (iii) 1 member appointed by the Sec22 retary of Agriculture;

23 (B) 3 members representing Canada, ap24 pointed by the Government of Canada; and
3

•S 1981 IS

1 (C) nonvoting members appointed by the

2 Commission to serve as advisers to the Commis3 sion, including university faculty, State veteri4 narians, trade experts, and other members.

5 (2) APPOINTMENT.—Members of the Commis6 sion shall be appointed not later than 30 days after

7 the date of enactment of this Act.

8 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the first

9 meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit

10 a report to Congress and the Government of Canada that

11 identifies, and recommends means of resolving, differences

12 between the United States and Canada with respect to the

13 production, processing, and sale of cattle and beef.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21


                       SUBSIDIARIES OF EP MEDSYSTEMS, INC.


ProCath Corporation D/B/A EP MedSystems
---------------------------------------
Cooper Run Executive Park
334 D6 Cooper Road
West Berlin, NJ 08009
State of Incorporation:    New Jersey
Business Name:             ProCath Corporation

EP MedSystems UK Ltd.
---------------------

10a Lion Road
Bexleyheath
Kent DA6 8NR, UK

State of Incorporation:    New Jersey
Business Name:             EP MedSystems, Europe Ltd.

EP MedSystems France S.A.R.L.
-----------------------------
12, Avenue du Quebec, Batiment H
Entree 9, SILIC 633
91965 Courtaboeuf Cedex, France