alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nahid RIZKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. 16-1055

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed April 12, 2017

Nabih H. Ayad, Law Offices, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Cary R. Berlin, Patrick, Johnson & Mott, Southfield, MI, for Defendant-Appel-lee

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.,

Nahid Rizka appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment to State Farm in this action for insurance coverage. We AFFIRM.

In August 2011, Nahid Rizka declared bankruptcy, claiming $45,000 in credit-card debt. She attested that she owned only *326$1,800 in personal property and no real property, but was renting a ■ home. The bankruptcy court granted her a discharge, eliminating her entire debt.

A year later, Rizka filed a homeowner’s insurance claim with State Farm, claiming water damage of $250,000 for the home and over $200,000 for personal property. She attested that she personally owned the home and all of the damaged property. When State Farm denied the claim as fraudulent she sued. State Farm moved for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel and fraud, and the district court agreed, granting summary judgment to State Farm. *Rizka v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*No. 13-cv-14870, 2015 WL 9314248 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2015).

In short, to discharge her debts in bankruptcy, Rizka had told the bankruptcy court that she owned nothing but then claimed to own almost $500,000 in real and personal property in order to recover from State Farm for its alleged loss. The district court explained that these were contrary positions and found that they did not result from mistake or inadvertence: Rizka was aware of what she was doing, did it in bad faith, and could not blame it on her bankruptcy attorney. The court also explained that by attesting in her insurance claim to State Farm that she alone owned the property—though she did not—she had made fraudulent statements.

On appeal, Rizka argues that her two positions are not inconsistent because the concept of home ownership is too confusing for a layperson to understand. She also blames her bankruptcy attorney; asserting that he advised her to say she didn’t own the house, even though she actually did— which is bizarre given that she did not ever actually, legally own the house. Rizka contends that she did not make inconsistent or fraudulent statements about the personal property because it actually belonged to her son, who wanted her to file the insurance claim for it. Finally, she insists that all of these are disputes to be decided by a jury, not by the court.

After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court has correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 31.02
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Move, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: November 9, 2009
    /s/ ROBERT J. KROLIKRobert J. KrolikChief Financial Officer 84
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mark Carlos BROWN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11082 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 22, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mark Carlos Brown, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mark Carlos Brown has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Brown has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of 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.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaron Quinn DAILEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51021 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 15, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jaron Quinn Dailey, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jaron Quinn Dailey has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed an initial brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th *388Cir. 2011). Dailey has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Dailey’s response. 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.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Carl A. Pelzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 
|   | Date: August 8, 2008 |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ Carl A. Pelzel        |
|   | Carl A. Pelzel            |
|   | President and             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
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

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                          
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr
|Name:              |  | David K. Spohr                                           
|Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|                   |  | (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)                 
|                   |  | Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,                    
|                   |  | Managing Owner of Futures Strategic Trust                
|                   | 
|Date:              |  | May 15, 2008
<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 three months
ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety be referenced to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         117,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,023,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,738,000
<INVENTORY>                                    507,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,383,000
<PP&E>                                       6,256,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,642,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,716,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,405,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,213,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,716,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,351,000
<CGS>                                        1,737,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,198,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $   0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Leander Smith, Appellant, *v.*Philip Smith, Respondent.

(Argued March 26, 1872;

decided April 2, 1872.)

*657
      *F. F. Bullard*for the appellant.

*James W. Culver*for the respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal. Fo opinion.
MASSENA EAST DOWNCOMER TEST POTROOM FLOW RATES (dscf/min)

Line 1 Run 1 Line 1 Run 2 Line 1 Run 3

Metals 4/30 Metals 4/30 Metals 5/1

3965024 3601902 3550762

Line 1 Run 1 Line 1 Run 2 Line 1 Run 3

HexCr 4/30 HexCr 4/30 HexCr 5/1

3968169 3584106 3552880

Line 3 Run 1 Line 3 Run 2 Line 3 Run 3

DF 4/30 DF 4/30 DF 5/1

3837511 3648875 4143142
EXHIBIT 3.2
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
OF
SUBURBAN PROPANE PARTNERS, L.P.
  1.
    
    The name of the limited partnership is Suburban Propane Partners, L.P.
(the Partnership).
 2.
    
    The address of the registered office of the Partnership in the State of
Delaware and the name and address of the registered agent of the Partnership
required to be maintained by Section 17-104 of the Act at such address are as
follows:
 Name and Address of Registered Agent
    
    Address of Registered OfficeThe Corporation Trust Company
    
    Corporation Trust CenterCorporation Trust Center
    
    1209 Orange Street1209 Orange Street
    
    Wilmington, Delaware 19801Wilmington, Delaware 19801
 3.
    
    The name and business address of the General Partner is as follows:
 General Partner
    
    AddressSuburban Energy Services
    
    One Suburban PlazaGroup LLC
    
    240 Route 10 WestWhippany, New Jersey 07981
  SUBURBAN ENERGY SERVICES GROUP LLC,
General PartnerBy:
    /s/ MARK A. ALEXANDERMark A. AlexanderPresident
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro M. CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50264

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*442Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Filed April 19, 2017

Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jennifer Lynn Coon, Attorney, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

**

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro M. Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments and the sentencing factors, and by failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Castillo’s arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its determination that a high-end sentence was warranted. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Castillo next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 11-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castillo’s multiple breaches of the court’s trust. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Finally, Castillo contends that the imposition of a custodial sentence upon revocation of supervised release violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he concedes, this claim is foreclosed. *See United States v. Santana,*526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jaya Raman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop S107-B, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511, email:                         *JRaman@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-04262 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8909]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7414]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Capitoline Venus''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Capitoline Venus,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about June 8, 2011, until on or 
about September 5, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-8909 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with this quarterly report of ML JWH Strategic AllocationFund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Benjamin C. Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2007
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN C. WESTON |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
#### CHUANEN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70727

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 13, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed June 16, 2017

Jisheng Li, Attorney, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner

Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Kohsei Ugumori, Attorney, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 'Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

The government’s unopposed motion to remand (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED. Chuanen Chen’s petition for review is therefore DISMISSED as moot. The filing of this order shall serve as the court’s mandate. Each party shall bear its own costs.

*

 This dispositive order is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### PEOPLE *v.*JOHNSON.

Criminal Law — Uttering and Publishing — Eorged Check.

Evidence in prosecution for uttering and publishing forged check *held,*sufficient to find defendant guilty of offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Reference for Points in Headnote

36 Am Jur 2d, Forgery § 47 *et seq.*

Appeal from Macomb, Noe (Alton II.), J.

Submitted Division 2 April 2, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 2,616.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Leave to appeal denied August 15, 1968.

See 381 Mich 771.

Richard Lee Johnson was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged check.

Affirmed.

*Frank J.*Kelley, Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *George N.*Parris,

*644Prosecuting Attorney, *Thaddeus F. Maniera,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Stephen F. Osinski,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Martin J. Smith,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of uttering and publishing a forged check, CL 1948, § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446). He appeals.

We have concluded from our examination of the record and briefs that defendant’s allegations of error are without merit. The people presented sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the offense charged beyond a -reasonable doubt.

Affirmed.

Lbsinski, C. J., and T. Gr. Kavanagh and T. J. Foley, JJ., concurred.