alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT - 31.1**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman andCo-Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofMossimo, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ MOSSIMO GIANNULLI                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Mossimo Giannulli                       |
| Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |
| August 11, 2005                    |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40062 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/22/2016

Rodolfo A. Cuellar, Jr., Pro Se.

Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Alvarez appeals his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment and *868four years of supervised release. He argues that the plea agreement is void due to the Government’s breach, lack of consideration, or frustration of purpose and that the factual basis is insufficient to support the guilty plea or renders the sentence unconstitutional.

Alvarez’s claims of error are reviewed for plain error because he failed to raise them in the district court. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). To show plain error, Alvarez must show that the error was clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. *See id.*If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” *Id.*(alteration in original) (quoting *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).

The Government did not breach the plea agreement because it was not reasonable for Alvarez to have understood that the plea agreement shielded him from the statutory minimum sentence. *See United States v. Pizzolato,*655 F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). The plea agreement is not clearly or obviously void for lack of consideration as we have never held that consideration is required to support a valid plea agreement. *See Olano,*507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. The doctrine of frustration of purpose is inapplicable because Alvarez fails to show that avoiding the statutory minimum sentence was a basic assumption underlying the plea agreement. *See United States v. Moulder,*141 F.3d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1998). Alvarez fails to show that the factual basis was clearly or obviously insufficient to support his guilty plea or affected his substantial rights. *See Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. He also fails to show that his sentence is clearly or obviously unconstitutional. *See id., Olano,*507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          47,162
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,069
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    713,200
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         217,810
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           219,601
<LOANS>                                      1,198,326
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,288,986
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,553,587
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             42,422
<LONG-TERM>                                    472,572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,163
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,288,986
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 45,104
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,402
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                28,067
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                76,573
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              28,426
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,811
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           35,762
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (175)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 31,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,649
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,649
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.48
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,415
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   927
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,971
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      895
<RECOVERIES>                                       139
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,815
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,815
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (LOGO)



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York NY 10036
Telephone (212) 596 8000
Facsimile (212) 596 8910



Report of Independent Accountants


February 29, 2000


To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation

We have examined the accompanying management assertion, dated February 29, 2000,
about GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation's (the "Company") compliance with its
established minimum servicing standards  ("Servicing  Policy") as of and for the
year ended  December 31,  1999.  Management  is  responsible  for the  Company's
compliance  with the  Servicing  Policy.  Our  responsibility  is to  express an
opinion on management's  assertion about the Company's  compliance  based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was made in accordance  with the standards  established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
Servicing Policy and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination  provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on
the Company's compliance with the Servicing Policy.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  Servicing  Policy as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


Pricewaterhouse Coopers  LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Carlos ARAUJO-CONTRERAS, also known as Juan Carlos Araujo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50026 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 20, 2017

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

Juan Carlos Araujo-Contreras, Pro Se

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Araujo-Contreras, federal prisoner # 36097-177, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his 210-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Araujo-Contreras is challenging the district court’s certification that this appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

Relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), Arau-jo-Contreras contends that there is an unwarranted disparity between his sentence and that of his brother, who was convicted in the same case and received a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, Araujo-Contreras, however, does not allege any facts suggesting that there is an unwarranted sentencing disparity among similarly situated defendants. He provides no details of any similarities between his and his brother’s offense conduct, criminal records, other history, or characteristics. His conclusory assertion that his brother is similarly situated fails to show that an unwarranted disparity exists. The fact that a co-defendant received a sentence reduction does not alone show that the denial of Araujo-Contreras’s § 3582(c)(2) motion created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. *See United States v. Guillermo Balleza,*613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).

Because Araujo-Contreras has not demonstrated that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits,” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.

*

 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.
#### Carlos Roberto FUENTES-DIAZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60224 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 9, 2017

Berdymurat Berdyev, Esq., Counsel, Berdyev Law, P.C., Woodbridge, NJ, for Petitioner

Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Roberto Fuentes-Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear at his removal hearing. The immigration judge denied his motion to reopen. He now petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen. He argues that service of the Notice to Appear (NTA) was defective because the NTA did not include a list of organizations and attorneys providing free legal services and did not include a Form EOIR-33. Fuentes-Diaz also argues that service was defective because he was not advised of the consequences of non-appearance at the removal hearing and the obligation to report his address to the court. Finally, he argues that lack of proper service resulted in a violation of his due process rights.

The NTA, which contained Fuentes-Diaz’s signature, advised him of the obligation of providing his mailing address and the consequences of failing to provide a current address. The NTA stated that it was served in person and that the alien was provided oral notice in Spanish that the time and date for the removal hearing would be set later and the consequences of failing to appear. In addition, the NTA stated that a list of organizations and attorneys was attached and Form 1-803 indicated that he was given Form EOIR-33 before he was released from custody. *277Thus, the record reflects that Fuentes-Diaz was personally served with the NTA and that service was not defective. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The record also reflects that Fuentes-Diaz failed to provide his address. This was a proper basis to deny reopening the removal proceedings. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B); *Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,*560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009). Fuentes-Diaz has shown no abuse of discretion. *See Gomez-Palacios,*560 F.3d at 358. Fuentes-Diaz’s due process argument is without merit. *See id.*at 361 n.2.

Fuentes-Diaz’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Florence B. Ziegler, as Surviving Spouse of Otto H. Ziegler, Deceased, Respondent. Fritz Ziegler, as Executor of Otto H. Ziegler, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 20, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*Abraham J. Goldberg*for appellants.

*Isidor Tankus*and *Benjamin Feldman*for respondent.

*917Order affirmed, with costs to petitioner-respondent payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demar Crozier WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30677 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

*421Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephen Adger Glassell, Esq., Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Demar Watson appeals his sentence for theft concerning programs receiving federal funds. The district court sentenced him to 38 months of imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised release, and $397,255.68 in restitution. He contends that the court clearly erred by applying a two-level enhancement per U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(10)(C) for an offense otherwise involving sophisticated means.

Watson transferred money from his employer’s account to his personal account, opened a credit account with his supervisor’s personal information, labeled the transactions as company expenses, and signed a blank company check to himself. His actions made it more difficult to detect the misappropriation, so the finding that the offense involved sophisticated means was plausible in light of the record as a whole and not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Valdez,*726 F.3d 684, 692, 695 (5th Cir. 2013).

The judgment 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE22-004: Research Grants To Prevent Firearm-
Related Violence and Injuries; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE22-004, Panel A: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related 
Violence and Injuries; April 4-5, 2022; CE22-004, Panel B1: Research 
Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related Violence and Injuries; April 6-8, 
2022; CE22-004, Panel B2: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related 
Violence and Injuries; April 6-8, 2022. The meeting was published in 
the Federal Register on February 16, 2022, Volume 87, Number 32, page 
8841.
    The meeting is being amended to correct the meeting dates and 
should read as follows:
    CE22-004, Panel A: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related 
Violence and Injuries; April 4-5, 2022; CE22-004, Panel B1: Research 
Grants to Prevent Firearm-Related Violence and Injuries; April 6-7, 
2022; and CE22-004, Panel B2: Research Grants to Prevent Firearm-
Related Violence and Injuries; April 6-7, 2022. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-0913, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#df9288beb3abbaadac9fbcbbbcf1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1ecf6c0cdd5c4d3d2e1c2c5c28fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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. 2022-04340 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### ONOSAI, Plaintiff v. SOO and TEVESI, Defendants

No. 11-1917

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” title: “Tuaolo”]

February 18, 1918

A. STRONACH, *Judge of the High Court of American Samoa*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard and being heard on the 13th and 18th days of February, A.D., 1918, it is ordered by the Court, that SOO, one of the defendants in the above-entitled action, be the holder of the name TUAOLO for his life time or until such time as he may resign, then the name to go back to the family for them to say who shall be the successor of SOO.

It is further ordered that the TEN DOLLARS paid by ONOSAI and the TEN DOLLARS paid by TEVESI shall represent the cost in this action.

In witness whereof, I, A. Stronach, as president of the High Court have hereunto set my hand and Official Seal this the 18th day of February, A.D., 1918.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mohammed Taimoor RAZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20624 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 14, 2017

Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mohammed Taimoor Raza appeals the revocation of his supervised release. Raza had pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. One of the special conditions of supervision that Raza violated was that he would “provide travel information and follow through with exiting the United States under immigration officials’ supervision.”

The appropriate guidelines range was 5 to 11 months in prison for the revocation. The district court found that Raza had made no attempt to contact his parents to secure the information necessary to secure travel documents and told the probation officer that he, Raza, had no intention of getting the documents necessary for his deportation. The court departed from the guidelines and sentenced Raza to two years in prison.

On appeal Raza challenges the imposition of the above-guidelines sentence. We review a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release under the plainly un*296reasonable standard, applying a two-step process. *United States v. Warren,*720 F.3d 321, 326 (6th Cir. 2013). First, we ensure that the district court did not commit significant procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. *Id*If there is no procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. *Id.*Raza argues that the sentence is based on the district court’s unfounded beliefs and assumptions. He has not shown that any of the factual findings supporting his sentence are clearly erroneous and has not shown a procedural error in his sentencing. *See id.*Nor has Raza shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. *See United States v. Heard,*709 F.3d 413, 435 (6th Cir. 2013); *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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.