alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Forest S. WHITAKER; Keisha Whitaker, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-73450

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed OCTOBER 4, 2017

Steven Ray Mather, Mather Law Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA, Petitioners-Appellants.

Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Bruce R. El-lisen, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Forest S. Whitaker and Keisha Whitaker appeal from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action for the Whitakers’ federal income tax liability for tax year 2013. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. *Miller v. Comm’r,*310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

Because the Tax Court properly determined that, the Settlement Officer did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the Whit-akers’ request for an installment agreement, the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, *See*26 U.S.C. § 6159; 26 C.F.R. § 301.6159—l(b)(l)(i) (IRS Settlement Officer has discretion to accept or reject any proposed installment plan); *see also*26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (Settlement Officer must decide “whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.”).

We reject as without merit the Whit-akers’ contention that the IRS Office of Appeals was biased.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 600 

To waive certain provisions in the case of an emergency declaration under 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To waive certain provisions in the case of an emergency 

declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS. 

4 In the case of an emergency declared pursuant to sec5 tion 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

6 Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191), the Admin7 istrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

8 shall not require the application of chapter 83 of title 41, 

9 United States Code, with respect to purchases made or 

10 contracts issued by Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 600 IH

1 American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands of the United 

2 States. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Eduardo JULIAO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,060
<SECURITIES>                                    49,729
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,156
<PP&E>                                           5,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,444)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           222
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,635
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,461)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,461)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)
        

</TABLE>
AMERICAN PROPERTIES GROUP, LLC, as trustee of the 7803 Berkshire Pines Drive Land Trust, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee ON BEHALF OF the HOLDERS OF the HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1 MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-1, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-73

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kenneth Robert BOEHM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Debra BOEHM, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4362

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 03, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129285 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129285 COA: 259423 Wayne CC: 95-001717-FY MARTIN EDWARD HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 24, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
Danette BENSEN, Appellant, v. Danny ELLIS, Betsy Ingraham, and Danny Ellis, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June  30,  2004  (the "Form 10-Q") of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company"),
we, Jacky K. Anderson,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Company, and Blake M.
Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of 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 our knowledge:

      (a)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations  of
      the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



      By: /s/ Jacky K. Anderson            Date: 8-16-04
          -----------------------------          ---------------
            Jacky K. Anderson
            Chief Executive Officer



      By: /s/ Blake M. Edwards             Date: 8-16-04
          -----------------------------          ---------------
            Blake M. Edwards
            Chief Financial Officer
Horace Lee HANKERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1198

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 19, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Jimenez Miguel PEDRO v. STATE

CR-16-0251

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 24-40028 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Franco Aniel Vargas-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:23-CR-283-1 

______________________________ 

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Franco Aniel 

Vargas-Martinez 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). Vargas-Martinez has not filed 

a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 26, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 24-40028 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2024
No. 24-40028 

2 

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: 24-40028 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2024
Gregory E. POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4029

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
TOP SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          7108 Fairway Drive, Suite 200
                        Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418-3757



                                                     September 27, 1999



Mr. George Jeff Mennen
TMF Investments, Inc.
25 B Hanover Road
Florham Park, NJ  07932

Wilmington Trust Company
Rodney Square North
1100 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE  19890
Attention:  Neil Howard, Esq.

Gentlemen:

     This letter is to amend the Stock Purchase Agreement entered into among Top
Source  Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") and the addressees of this letter on
November 17, 1998,  in the  following  respects:

1. The second certificate of designation for the Series B Convertible Redeemable
Preferred  Stock (the "Series B Preferred")  shall be amended in order to extend
the time of the Company to redeem the Series B Preferred at 115% of stated value
plus accrued dividends through and including December 31, 2000, and the Series B
Preferred shall not be convertible prior to January 1, 2001, without the express
written consent of the Company.

2. In all other respects,  the Stock Purchase Agreement is ratified and
confirmed.

3. As consideration for this  modification,  the Company shall issue warrants to
purchase  250,000  shares of its common stock at an exercise  price of $2.38 per
share  expiring  at 6:00  p.m.  New York  time on  October  27,  2009.  Of these
warrants, 142,857 shall be issued to Wilmington Trust Co. and George Jeff Mennen
Co-trustees U/A dated  11/25/70,  and 107,143 shall be issued to the George Jeff
Mennen, Trustee U/A dated 10/23/85, f/b/o descendants of George S. Mennen.

<PAGE>

Mr. Mennen and Wilmington Trust
September 27, 1999
Page -2-



     Please execute a copy of this letter agreement evidencing your agreement
to be bound.
                                                     Sincerely yours,



                                                     William C. Willis, Jr.
                                                     President

We hereby agree to the foregoing.


Wilmington Trust Co. and  George Jeff Mennen,  Co-Trustees U/A dated  11/25/70


BY: /s/George Jeff Mennen, Trustee
    George Jeff Mennen, Trustee



George Jeff Mennen, Trustee
U/A dated 10/23/85 f/b/o descendents of George S. Mennen

BY: /s/George Jeff Mennen, Trustee
    George Jeff Mennen, Trustee
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Eduardo VASQUEZ-SEGOVIANO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40618 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 5, 2017

*189John A. Reed, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Paul Georges Hajjar, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Hector Eduardo Vasquez-Segoviano appeals the 77-month sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. He complains that the district court plainly erred when it deemed his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2), a crime of violence and applied U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2015) to increase his offense level. He contends that for the Texas offense of aggravated assault to qualify as a crime of violence under § 2L1.2, that offense must match the generic definition, without reference to judicial records. Vasquez-Segoviano cites to the definition of a crime of violence at 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which, he contends, includes physical force as an element, and that physical force implies the active employment of force. Citing *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), he argues that the crime of violence definition in § 16(b) is unconstitutional and precludes the 16-level increase in his case.

Vasquez-Segoviano did not object to the sentence enhancement in the district court, so our review is for plain error. *See United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya,*812 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2016). In *United States v. Guillen-Alvarez,*489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir. 2007), we held that a conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.02 qualifies as the enumerated offense of aggravated assault and thus is a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). *Guillen-Alvarez*remains valid after *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). *United States v. Shepherd,*848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017); *United States v. Villasenor-Ortiz,*675 Fed.Appx. 424 (5th Cir. 2017), *petition for cert. filed*(May 31, 2017) (No. 16-9422). We are bound by our own precedent unless it should be altered by thp Supreme Court. *Wicker v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

Vasquez-Segoviano’s reliance on *Johnson*is also unavailing a? *Johnson*did not involve crime-of-violenpe enhancements under § 2L1.2. *See United States v. Perez-Belmares,*670 Fed.Appx. 330, 331 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2016); *see also United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 675-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). He thus has not met his burden of showing plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
George MILLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1845 - 0085

– Affected Public

– Private Institutions 8/27/2014

This request is for the extension of a current paperwork collection in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1845 - 0085 for the reporting requirement contained in the regulations for States, not - for - profit lenders and eligible lender trus tees under 34 CFR 682.302 for the Federal Family

Education L oan (FFEL) Program. Section 682.302 contains information collection requirements. The information collection requirements are necessary to determine or recertify eligibility

to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. The regulations in §682.302 require a State, non - profit entity , or eligible lender trustee to provide to the Secretary

a certification on the State or non - profit entity ’s letterhead signed b y the State or non - profit’s Chief Executive Officer which states the basis upon which the entity qualifies as a State or non - profit entity. The submission must include documentation establishing the entity ’s State or non - profit status. In addition, the submission must include the name and lender identification number for which the eligible not - for - profit designation is being certified. Once an entity

has been approved as an eligible not - for - profit holder, the entity must provide to the Secretary

an annual certification on the State or non - profit entity’s letterhead signed b y the CEO, which includes the name and lender identification number(s ) of the entities for which designation is being recertified. The annual certification must state that the State or non - profit entity has not altered its status as a State or non - profit entity since its prior certification to the Secretary and that it continues to satisfy the requirements of an eligible not - for - profit holder either in its own right or through a trust agreement with an eligible lender trustee. When an approved not - for - profit holder has a change in status, within 10 day s of becoming aware of the occurrence of a change that may result in a State or non - profit entity that has been designated an eligible not - for - profit holder, either directly or through an eligible lender trustee, losing that eligibility , the State or non - profit entity must s ubmit details of the change to the Secretary . Based on applications filed for 2014 there are 3 fewer Not - for - profit entities who submitted the required documentation. Recalculated amount of burden for Not - for - profit entities: 501(c) (3) non - profit ent ities submitting documentation 45 Average time to complete the submission 1.0 hour Total time to complete the submissions 45 hours
Robert RINESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                                                   |  | 
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | /s/ Leland W. Brantley, Jr.                                       |  | 
| |  | Leland W. Brantley, Jr. Chief Financial Officer November 13, 2006 |  |
Filed 5/19/15 P. v. O ’ Neal CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

YOUNG O'N EAL,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B258416

(Super. Ct. No. PA077690)

(Los Angeles County)

Young O'Neal appeals after a jury convicted him of carrying a dirk or

dagger (Pen. Code, 1 § 21310) and found true allegations that he had suffered a prior

strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d)) and served five prior

prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to six years in state

prison and awarded him 614 days presentence custody credit

.

Los Angel es Police Officers James Galbraith and Heather Monroe were on

patrol when they received a radio call regarding a disturbance at a liquor store . Appellant

was named as the suspect. Officer Galbraith recognized appellant's name from prior

encounters and kn ew he was on active parole with search terms.

The officer subsequently detained appellant as he was walking through the

liquor store's parking lot. During a parole search, a screwdriver was found in appellant 's

rear pants pocket. The screwdriver had a flat head at the tip and was slightly bent. From

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

his experience, Officer Galbraith knew that screwdriver s of this type were often used as a

weapon to inflict a "gaping, tearing wound ." After waiving his Miranda 2 rights,

appellant said he was carrying th e screwdriver for protection.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's

examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On February 1 8 , 201 5 , we advised appellant that he had 30 da ys within

which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We

received no response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no argu able issues exist.

( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly ( 2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,

126.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

2 Mirand a v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.3 Cynthia Ulfig, Judge

Superior C ourt County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Scott A. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3719

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.