alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Capital Corp of the West (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2003 As filed with Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Dale McKinney , ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCapital Corp of the West and will be retained by Capital Corp of the West andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| March 25,  2003 |                     |
|-----------------|--------------------------|
|            |                     |
|            | /s/ R. Dale  McKinney    |   |
|            | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Fernando Quinones PEREZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 6781.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard Nov. 7, 1966.

Decided Nov. 16, 1966.

*321Guy R. Peznola, Jr., Quincy, Mass., for appellant.

J. F. Bishop, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom J. William Doolittle, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul F. Markham, U. S. Atty., and Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, Mc-ENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

PER CURIAM.

 Plaintiff appellant was injured in Connecticut by a car belonging to, and driven by, one James, an enlisted man, who was on liberty, but driving between his home and his duty station. He seeks recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that James was acting in the line of duty, viz., in the course of his employment. Merritt v. United States, 1 Cir., 1964, 382 F.2d 397, 398. We do not agree. James was merely commuting. That the Navy gave him a subsistence allowance, or that he was subject to call (but had not been called) at other than his regular duty hours, or that he could be court-martialed for proscribed activity while on liberty, did not mean that such commutation was for the benefit of, or was sufficiently controlled by, his employer to bring it within the scope of his employment. We have examined the Connecticut cases and find none rejecting the ordinary rule that a servant is not engaged in his master’s business when travelling between home and work. Restatement (Second), Agency § 229, comment d. In the absence of an affirmative showing we will not assume that Connecticut would hold otherwise. Merritt v. United States, supra.

Affirmed.
# ..-....**~** Indianapolis Airport Authority
7800 Col. H. Weir Cook Memorial Dr. Indianapolis, Indiana 46241 office 317.487.9594 (ax 317.487.5034
March 19, 2010 The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 Newjersey Avenue, SE**Was~i~~ton,** DC 20590
Dear Secretary LaHood:
On behalf ofthe Indianapolis Airport Authority, I am writing to express our strong supportforthe application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefitfor our region, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with japan. There are over 220 Japanese companies located in Indiana and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to japan and its market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity toTokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying intoTokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and an airportthat can support trans-pacific routes. Nearly half of our airport's travelers select Delta when making their travel arrangements tojapan. The addition for Delta of Haneda as a destination is a natural fitthatwould clearly benefit our business travelers.
Thankyou foryour consideration ofthis request.

john D. Clark III Executive Director/CEO

www.indianapolisairport.com
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime GUERRERO-ROBLEDO Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4336

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2017

Filed: July 25, 2017

Alan Lee Everett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jaime Guerrero-Robledo, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jaime Guerrero-Robledo challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to an immigration offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asking the court to disregard the appeal waiver, and arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Counsel also seeks leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we cqnclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. *See United States v. Scott,*627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) *(de novo*review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
(LOGO) First Union

First Union National Bank
NC1075
Structured Products Servicing
8739 Research Drive, URP4
Charlotte, NC 28288-1075

MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION

As of and for the year ended  December 31, 1999,  First Union National Bank (the
Bank) has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  (MBA's)  Uniform
Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers,  except for minimum servicing
standards V.4. and VI. 1., which the MBA has  interpreted as being  inapplicable
to the servicing of commercial  and  multifamily  loans.  As of and for the same
period,  the Bank had in effect fidelity bond and errors and omissions  policies
in the amount of $200 million and $20 million, respectively.



John M. Church
Managing Director/Senior Vice President
First Union National Bank
February 4, 2000
Date

Timothy S. Ryan
Director/Vice President
First Union National Bank
February 4, 2000
Date

John V. Gannon
Vice President
First Union National Bank
Residential Master Servicing
February 4, 2000
Date

Jeffrey B. Mandel
Vice President
First Union National Bank
Residential Master Servicing
February 4, 2000
Date
#### Charles H. Ross, Respondent, *v.*Marion Ross, Appellant.

Argued May 21, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*888
      *Harold J. O’Keeffe*for appellant.

*James M. Noonan*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs. Question certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Harjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73793

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

*370Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.

OIL, Jesi J. Carlson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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 **

Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen where it was untimely and number-barred, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Carlos Paul GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. J. S. WILLIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-50141 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 24, 2017

Carlos Paul Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Paul Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 82609-179, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 135-month sentence for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. He argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case and that his sentence violated his ex post facto rights.

We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition. *Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Generally, claims of trial or sentencing errors are not properly raised in a § 2241 petition. *Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). However, a § 2241 petition that attacks a federal sentence may be considered if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To satisfy this “savings clause,” the petitioner must show that the claims are “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and that the claims were previously “foreclosed by circuit law.” *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

As the district court correctly determined, Gonzalez has failed to make such a showing. Contrary to Gonzalez’s assertion, the denial of his prior § 2255 motion does not, in and of itself, establish that § 2255 relief is inadequate. *See Pack,*218 F.3d at 452-53. Nor does *Peugh v. United States,*- U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 2078, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013), which addressed an application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, establish that Gonzalez was convicted of a nonexistent offense. *See Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 904.

The judgment of the district court is 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.
ex10-1.htm





Exhibit 10.1


 


As of January 27, 2012







Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich (Nicholas D. Trbovich, Sr.)


28 Tanglewood Drive, West


Orchard Park, NY 14127







Dear Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich (Nicholas D. Trbovich, Sr.):







You and Servotronics, Inc. (the “Company”) are parties to an Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2005 and ratified on June 30, 2006 pursuant to which you are employed by the Company. This letter confirms such Amended Employment Agreement and subsequent ratification and subsequent Amendments dated August 4, 2006, July 6, 2007, July 9, 2008, December 31, 2008, July 2, 2009, February 22, 2010, July 22, 2010, April 3, 2011, August 12, 2011 and any and all other relevant amendments (the “Amended Agreement”).







This letter will also confirm your agreement and that of the Company by action of the Board of Directors on January 27, 2012 to Amend Paragraph 1 of the Amended Agreement to delete “December 31, 2014” and insert in its place “December 31, 2015” subject to your acceptance which will be indicated by your signature below.







If the foregoing meets with your approval and you are willing to become bound hereby, please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of this letter.







Very truly yours,







SERVOTRONICS, INC.


 


Bernadine E. Kucinski,


Assistant Corporate Secretary


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


 




	
/s/Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich

	 	 	
As of January 27, 2012

	 
	
Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich

	 	 	
Date

	 
	
(Nicholas D. Trbovich, Sr.)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 

### 466

_’ d

**t&umrabla Jao.**  **(i. ~cIclama**  

### &XUEE&~SlOXWJP Dspacww3nt of banktng Austin, Texao llerr u. lCAdaum! opinion LO.

8Yc iuuid ll.ke to kntm whotber beaka rkiioh have aaquircd real estate before the Of~cUtfve data ot’ the 1~3~ItUbnkin$ Cod0 should ~ollor t.hs pruvieione a? Article 514 n. 5. or thou@ of Article 2 kitlaptOP 8 of the 1943 HankAIl& c;oae.

## 468

(16) of eucikb

a%gizml boor Talueuntil oaergea

dew84 ce tment7-rive 

### per eemt (a&) &-ha origi~l beak ralus; provided 

### thet &he CduioQor may pore% a lesserperooatogte

**to be**  

### de#resiatal

Qurirry any year.' ArUule 614 of she Mwlee4l Civil **Statutes** 

### 8bwe *oWdwu l **pMtotGhapter8 of**  

### Tit1@16 oi the Aaied 

### civil gtntutm. krtiole 11 of ChaptarIX ef the **State 8uWng**  **Cede deptod**  **by** ***e 4atb**  

### ~egiolature expreeelf

ra**peela** Title 

### 16 of the Uwi~e& CL*11 Otattat88 

### of 

### TOXM, m an & w it h - u s obba r l t8t u t o s

m b lo ss d t e o ti~ **bmun~, th0reW**  **orklng the**  **cods ooaplete**  within itrelt, 

### ua cm uolueirs **8t&Qte Mu4**  **ragtoo*** **te bwklng**  imti- 

### ~~tioM, b&IS

expr~ pwieiel3 6f Alao f, chapterI, 6ea1a$ng, Wtle Code pawidea 8 oumplate**myatoa** 

### of uw* **worni.ne** 

### the **organisatioa,** 

### fiqs4iA.tion

et me.&6buss..**operat&oa, eupemidon**  **and**


### m'tmt,bberd ie a0 BktQtlory 

### leria nmeupcin **woa** *ubJaut 

### otha. **bhaa ArbLL6le**  **8, CJiaptr**  **t, et**  

### the stete ib a a-G al e,

a* l ?Pw a 

## qotsa.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1999,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              87,360
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    91,686
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      91,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,778,480
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           118,989
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,805,783)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        91,686
<SALES>                                            175,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   175,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      239,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (186,616)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    122,147
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       122,147
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .00



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10279

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Camil Skipper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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

*

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

*636MEMORANDUM **

Jamie Rangel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We dismiss.

Rangel argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. *See United States v. Harris,*628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Rangel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal of his low-end Guidelines sentence. *See id.*at 1205-06. The record belies Ran-gel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. *See United States v. Arias-Espinosa,*704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. *See Harris,*628 F.3d at 1207.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         424,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,667,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,884,000
<INVENTORY>                                    881,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,621,000
<PP&E>                                       2,964,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,074,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,725,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,350,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,737,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,725,000
<SALES>                                      9,238,000    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,238,000
<CGS>                                        3,815,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,319,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             179,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (260,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (115,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (145,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (145,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 

OF PINNACLEDATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2008 

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008. 

I, Nicholas J. Tomashot, certify that, the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

This certification is executed as ofAugust 14, 2008.