alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Golden Build Construction Co. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4M-10-C-7134 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60928 

Mr. Mahmood Nezam 

Chief Executive 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

LTC Joseph J. Jankunis, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 22 June 2017 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60928, Appeal of Golden Build 

Construction Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7555
JOHN A. CASILLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY RAY, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution, Estill, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-90-314, CA-96-1638-9-18JC) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Casillas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying reliefon his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Casillas v. Ray , Nos. CR-90-314; CA-96-1638- 9-18JC (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### PARKER v. STATE.

No. 16137.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 22, 1933.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The state’s witness Cole testified that he purchased two pints of whisky from the appellant. Oole claims to have been drunk, and his testimony is somewhat confusing. In some places he said he got whisky from the appellant, and in others he said that he bought it from a woman in the presence of the appellant. Cole described two transactions at different places in each of which he bought a pint of whisky and paid $1 per pint. The appellant was present, but, so far as the record shows, the whisky was delivered to Cole by a woman at a place where ha was conducted by the appellant. Cole testified that on the 19th day of July, 1932, there was a transaction near Camp Landau in which he got a pint of whisky from the appellant; that he bought whisky twice on the same day. It appears from the statement of facts that on another occasion at the same place Cole obtained beer through the instrumentality of the appellant. The court instructed the jury that the only evidence before them for a conviction which could be considered was the transaction occurring on or about the 19th of July, 1932, and that they would disregard the testimony touching the transaction occurring at 957 Locust street.

There are no bills of exception in the record and no exceptions to the court’s charge.

In the motion for new trial, there is complaint that the jury was not confined to the transaction on the 19th of July, but was permitted to consider against the- appellant, as developed from the evidence, also the transaction occurring on the 19th of August. As stated above, the court limited the transaction to that of the 19th of July, at a certain place, eliminating the transactions at other places. There are no bills of exception, and the lowest penalty was assessed. We have been favored with no brief in behalf of the appellant.

Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Castillo, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Emilia
Ochoa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Emilia Ochoa
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 01, 2010

Mr. James Warner Huggler Jr.

Attorney at Law

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805

Tyler, TX 75702

Honorable Floyd T. Getz

Smith County Courthouse

County Court At Law #3

100 N. Braodway, 3rd Fl

Tyler, TX 75702

Mr. Michael West

Smith County Criminal District Attorney

100 North Broadway, 4th Fl.

Tyler, TX 75702

RE:Case Number:  10-0383

Court of Appeals Number:  12-10-00141-CV

Trial Court Number:  3-0295-09

Style:IN RE  B.T., A JUVENILE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  The stay order issued May 27, 2010 is lifted.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 10-0383Page 1**
Exhibit 33.7



|     |  |                                                               
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601 (312)
233-6440

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank(the
Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period
from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR). NTS has used the
servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (1)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii),
1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of
the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the
assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Lori D. Eshoo           
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO
|January 18, 2016
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. John Birkey, Appellant.

Good Character: instruction. An instruction to the jury in a criminal prosecution limiting the benefit of proof of previous good, character to cases where the guilt of the accused is doubtful, is reversible error.

*Appeal from Fremont District Court.*— Hok. A. B. Thor-Nell, Judge.

Tuesday, January 13, 1904.

INDICTMENT and conviction upon charge of larceny. Defendant *appeals.*

Reversed.

*C. W.*Mullan, Attorney General, and *C. A. YanYleck,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*W. E. Mitchell*for appellant.

Weaver, J.

'The larceny alleged was of a team of horses. The defense was to the effect that appellant hired the horses from the owner in good faith, and without any intent to appropriate them to his own use, but after receiving them into his possession became greatly intoxicated, and disposed of them without felonious intent. Among other things in support of his defense, appellant offered witnesses who testified they had long been acquainted with him, and that prior to this transaction he had borne a good character for integrity and honesty. In charging the jury upon this feature of the case the court gave the following instruction: “Bar. 11. Evidence has been introduced to show that prior to the transaction in question the defendant’s general reputation for honesty and integrity was good in the community in which he *103lived. Now, good character is not a 'defense to crime when a crime has in fact been committed. But where good character is shown it is proper to be considered in determining whether a person bearing such a character would be likely to commit the crime in question, and might be sufficient in a doubtful case to turn the scale in favor of the defendant.” To the giving of this instruction appellant excepts, and assigns error thereon. Under the rule heretofore adopted and quite frequently followed by this court, this instruction cannot be approved. It is true that in some other states the doctrine of this instruction obtains, and evidence of good character is allowed little or no weight, except in cases of a doubtful or inconclusive character. But after examining these precedents we have distinctly declined to follow them. *State v.*Northrop, 48 Iowa, 583; *State v.*Horning, 49 Iowa, 158; *State v.*Jones, 52 Iowa, 150; *State v. Wolf,*112 Iowa, 361. See, also, Greenleaf, Evidence, section 25. In *State v.*Gustafson, 50 Iowa, 194, the true rule is said to be that in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the accused proof of good character constitutes an ingredient to be considered by the jury without reference to the apparently conclusive or inconclusive character of the other evidence, and it is for the jury to determine what weight such evidence of character shall have with them. The instruction under consideration appears to be clearly at variance with this rule, and prejudicial to the defense.

Other exceptions urged are not well taken, or are of a character not likely to arise on retrial.

Eor the error in the instruction referred to the judgment below must be reversed, and cause remanded for new trial. — EeveRSBd.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2977

To assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in

the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to ensure

the protection and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made

at the lake and to develop a trail system for the lake for use by

pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27, 2000

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and

museum in the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake

in southern California to ensure the protection and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made at the

lake and to develop a trail system for the lake for use

by pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles.

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

3 SECTION 1. INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MUSEUM, DIA4 MOND VALLEY LAKE, HEMET, CALIFORNIA.

5 (a) ASSISTANT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTER

6 AND MUSEUM.—The Secretary of the Interior shall enter
2

S 2977 IS

1 into an agreement with an appropriate entity for the pur2 pose of sharing costs incurred to design, construct, fur3 nish, and operate an interpretive center and museum, to

4 be located on lands under the jurisdiction of the Metropoli5 tan Water District of Southern California, intended to

6 preserve, display, and interpret the paleontology discov7 eries made at and in the vicinity of the Diamond Valley

8 Lake, near Hemet, California, and to promote other his9 torical and cultural resources of the area.

10 (b) ASSISTANCE FOR NONMOTORIZED TRAILS.—The

11 Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the State of

12 California, a political subdivision of the State, or a com13 bination of State and local public agencies for the purpose

14 of sharing costs incurred to design, construct, and main15 tain a system of trails around the perimeter of the Dia16 mond Valley Lake for use by pedestrians and non-motor17 ized vehicles.

18 (c) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall

19 require the other parties to an agreement under this sec20 tion to secure an amount of funds from non-Federal

21 sources that is at least equal to the amount provided by

22 the Secretary.

23 (d) TIME FOR AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall

24 enter into the agreements required by this section not
3

S 2977 IS

1 later than 180 days after the date on which funds are first

2 made available to carry out this section.

3 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

4 authorized to be appropriated not more than $14,000,000

5 to carry out this section.

Æ
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Ian McBean, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Auror Capital Corp., (the Company), 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the quarter ended April 30, 2007 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                               



| | By:    | /s/ Ian McBean             
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | Ian McBean                 
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | July 12, 2007              

---
|   | Exhibit      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------------------------------|

| 18      U.S.C. § 1350 |
|----------------------------|

| AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|-----------------------------|

| SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|---------------------------------------------------|

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KINGSLEY LLOYD BOWEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10547

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00679-SRB-3

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Kingsley Lloyd Bowen appeals his convictions of Conspiracy to Possess

with Intent To Distribute 1,000 Kilograms or More of Marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§

846; 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(A)(vii)); Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments

FILED

APR 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)); Conspiracy to Destroy or Remove Property to Prevent

Seizure (18 U.S.C. § 371); and Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent

Seizure (18 U.S.C. § 2232(a)). Because the parties are familiar with the history of

the case, we need not recount it here. We affirm the district court.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bowen’s motion to

continue his sentencing hearing. A district court has “broad discretion” to grant or

deny a continuance. United States v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Its decision “will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion.”

Id. at 1126-27 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not abuse

its discretion by denying the motion for a continuance because Bowen had enough

time to analyze the error found in Exhibit 299, and he did not specifically explain

why a continuance would have been necessary given his familiarity with Exhibit

299 and the underlying shipping records. See United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d

1470, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) (Although “additional time can often be put to good

use,” “general allegations that a continuance would have allowed [the defendant] to

prepare a better defense . . . are insufficient to allow [the Court] to find an abuse of

discretion.”). 

II
3

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe

Bowen’s motion for continuance as a motion for a new trial. A “motion must state

the grounds on which it is based and the relief or order sought.” FED. R. CRIM. P.

47(b). Bowen clearly requested a continuance of his sentencing, not a new trial. 

Indeed, Bowen’s motion in response to the government’s Notice of Errata was

titled “Request for Continuance of Sentencing.” 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):October 11, 2007 (October 5, 2007)
 SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP
  Delaware
    
    001-33556
    
    41-2232463(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas
    
    77056(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    713-627-5400
  
   o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act
(17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
  Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
 (d)
    
    Exhibits10.1
    
    First Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2007, by and among Spectra
Energy Partners OLP, LP, as the Borrower, Spectra Energy Partners, LP, as Parent Guarantor and
Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, and the other lenders party
thereto.




---



##### 



SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LPBy:
    Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP,its general partnerBy:
    Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC,its general partner/s/  Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit Number
    
    Exhibit10.1
    
    
    First Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2007, by and
among Spectra Energy Partners OLP, LP, as the Borrower, Spectra Energy Partners, LP, as
Parent Guarantor and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, and
the other lenders party thereto.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Deborah Flores, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of JJ&R Ventures, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  August 13, 2008  /s/ Deborah Flores Deborah Flores President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to JJ&R Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by JJ&R Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.