alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATIONS     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.(the “Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2007   /s/ JOHN KALLAS   John Kallas  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of CCC
* 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

November 3, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50132

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON LEE HAISLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 6:04-CR-149-1

--------------------

Before SMITH, GARZA, AND PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nelson Haisler appeals his 151-month sentence following his

guilty-plea conviction of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine

within 1000 feet of a school. Haisler argues that the sentence is

unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756

(2005). He assigns no error in the guidelines computations. He is

effectively arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him
No. 05-50132

-2-

pursuant to the mandatory sentencing guidelines regime at the time

of sentencing rather than considering the guidelines as only on

factor in determining his sentence. Because Haisler is raising

this issue for the first time on appeal, plain error is the standard of review. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560

n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 6485 (U.S.

Oct. 3, 2005). 

The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced Haisler under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. See

United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 6700 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005);

United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005),

cert. denied, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 7577 (U.S. Oct. 11, 2005). Haisler

fails to meet his burden of showing that the error affected his

substantial rights. See Valenzeuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733-34;

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 6132 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005); see also United

States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 317 n.4 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 6686 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005).

AFFIRMED.
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.

CELIA J. STEARNS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30113

D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00171-RHW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Celia J. Stearns appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to

sever joint liability and other alternative relief. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

APR 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30113

Stearns contends that the district court erred when it held that it lacked

jurisdiction to amend the judgment to sever joint liability, or to compel the

government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover restitution

payments. Stearns fails to establish the applicability of any of the limited

circumstances under which an order of restitution may be altered. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3664(o); see also United States v. Morales, 328 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2003)

(district courts do not have “inherent authority” to modify a fine imposed as part of

a sentence). Additionally, Stearns identifies no authority upon which the court

may compel the government to pursue the estate of her co-defendant to recover

restitution payments. See generally United States v. Bright, 353 F.3d 1114, 1124

(9th Cir. 2004) (“Nothing in the [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act] indicates that

district courts themselves are required to reach out and order the government to

transfer forfeited funds from government entities to victims.”). 

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE JASSO ACOSTA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-533

Agency No. A077-971-888

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Jasso Acosta petitions for review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an 

immigration judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

* 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

MAR 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-533

1. The IJ and BIA relied on the appropriate factors and proper 

evidence in determining that Jasso is ineligible for withholding of removal 

because he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2020). Jasso 

argues that the agency erred in failing to consider his mental condition at the 

time of the crime. See Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir. 

2018). But Jasso did not provide the IJ with any evidence about his mental state 

or health, and, because Jasso was represented by counsel, the IJ had no 

independent duty to develop the record. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 

1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Benedicto v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1062 

(9th Cir. 2021) (“Gomez-Sanchez did not impose a new standard that the IJ must 

always reference a petitioner’s mental health in a ‘particularly serious crime’ 

determination.”). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in adopting the IJ’s 

analysis. See Bare, 975 F.3d at 961; see generally Matter of Burbano, 20 I. &

N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) (articulating standard of review).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Jasso’s CAT 

claim. As Jasso concedes, there is no evidence of past torture in the record. Nor 

did Jasso’s testimony about two encounters with cartel members establish a 

likelihood of future torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. 

See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2019). As to the articles 

Jasso provided, evidence of generalized violence and crime that is not particular 

to the petitioner is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See, e.g., 
3 21-533

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Accordingly, we also deny the motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 8) as moot.
*October 10, 1939.*

#### Hanson, Appellant, vs. Nelson, Respondent.

For the appellant: *M. J. McDonald*and *Beznor, McDonald & Beznor,*attorneys, and *Lee K. Beznor*of counsel, all of Balsam Lake.

For the respondent: *Nelton & McGinnis*of Balsam Lake, attorneys, and *G. Burgess Ela*of Madison of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
No. 90-6203.

#### Blatchford *v.*Sullivan, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
May 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TIMOTHY CASTRO, JR., Appellant

NO. 14-11-01087-CV V.

MARGARET CASTRO, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Margaret 

Castro, signed September 16, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM 

the judgment of the court below to (1) delete the clause providing that Timothy’s 

obligation for Matthew and Stephanie’s expenses is non-dischargeable under 

section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code and (2) award Margaret’s attorney’s fees 

directly to Margaret rather than to her attorney.

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified 

in this judgment.

We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy A. Cummings, II, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 201]

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered September 13, 1993, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endanger*758ing the welfare of a child for digitally penetrating the vaginas of two children he was babysitting on the evening of January 23, 1993. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the unsworn testimony of the two victims, both under 12 years of age, was insufficiently corroborated as required by CPL 60.20 (3). In order to satisfy the statute, "[t]he proof presented must tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime so that the trier of fact is reasonably satisfied that the unsworn witness was telling the truth” *(People v Tomczak,*189 AD2d 926, 927, *lv denied*81 NY2d 977).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Tomczak, supra),*we conclude that the testimony of the second physician who examined the victims was sufficient for this purpose *(see, People v Abair,*134 AD2d 743, 744-745, *lv denied*70 NY2d 1003). The physician noted that there was an abnormal appearance of the external genital regions and hymens of both children and that these findings were consistent with physical injury by digital penetration. The testimony of the children’s father also tended to corroborate their stories and, since defendant admitted babysitting the children on the night in question, the jury could infer that defendant had the opportunity to commit the crimes *(see, supra,*at 745). Thus, "[t]he evidence, when taken collectively, tends to establish both the commission of the crimes and defendant’s connection thereto” *(People v Tomczak, supra,*at 927).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 86-6002.

#### Patel *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 91-329.

#### Rebel Motor Freight, Inc. *v.*Interstate Commerce Commission et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Staff to Meet February 27 with FPC Management to Discuss Restart of Crystal River Nuclear Plant

----

----

No: II-98-13

February 20, 1998

**NRC STAFF TO MEET FEBRUARY 27 WITH FPC MANAGEMENTTO DISCUSS RESTART OF CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT**

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Florida Power Corporation management on Friday, February 27 in Crystal River, Florida to discuss issues associated with the company's restart of the Crystal River nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m. until 12 noon at the company training center, located at 8200 West Venable Street , just off Highway 19 at the Crystal River airport.

L. Joseph Callan, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations, will visit the power plant and attend the meeting, which is open to observation by the news media and interested members of the public. He will be available, along with senior members of the NRC staff, at the meeting's conclusion to answer questions from interested observers.

FPC shut down the Crystal River nuclear power plant on September 2, 1996 to address a number of design and engineering concerns. The company restarted the facility, with NRC staff concurrence, on February 2 of this year.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### In the Matter of Robert Ruggiero, Petitioner, v Philip Coombe, Jr., as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 35]

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner was charged with violating various inmate rules arising out of an obscene phone call. The parole officer who had received the obscene phone call listened to a tape recording of petitioner’s voice and positively identified petitioner’s "distinctive voice”. That testimony, along with the misbehavior report that placed petitioner in the room from which the obscene phone call was made, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt. Petitioner’s reliance upon *Matter of Grimmett v Riley*(192 AD2d 831) is misplaced. In that case, there was no evidence "that one of the voices from the recorded telephone conversations was actually identified as [the] petitioner’s voice” *(Matter of Grimmett v Riley, supra,*at 831).

Petitioner did not raise the excessiveness of the penalty in his CPLR article 78 petition and, therefore, that issue is not properly before us. In any event, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. (CPLR art 78 Transferred Proceeding by Order of Supreme *845Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1581 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1581

       To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to add access to 
telecommunications and information services in Indian country and areas 
    with high populations of Indian people to the universal service 
 principle relating to access to such services in rural, insular, and 
                            high cost areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2017

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to add access to 
telecommunications and information services in Indian country and areas 
    with high populations of Indian people to the universal service 
 principle relating to access to such services in rural, insular, and 
                            high cost areas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Digital Access Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL SERVICE IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND AREAS WITH HIGH 
              POPULATIONS OF INDIAN PEOPLE.

    Section 254(b)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``and in Indian country (as defined 
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) and areas with high 
populations of Indian (as defined in section 19 of the Act of June 18, 
1934 (Chapter 576; 48 Stat. 988; 25 U.S.C. 5129)) people'' after ``high 
cost areas''.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Charleston and USS Green Bay Participate in Garuda Shield 2022 

By Lt.j.g. Mohammad IssaDestroyer Squadron 7 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
No. 91-6283.

#### Ashley *v.*Trippett, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of Open Text Corporation (the
Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul McFeeters,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.

















Date:  
      February 4, 2009
            By:                     /s/ PAUL
      MCFEETERSPaul
      McFeetersChief
      Financial Officer
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
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Speedus Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Kallassy, Treasurer and 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:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange of 1934, amended; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
November 15, 2010By:
/s/ John A. KallassyTitle:
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer