alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Maurice E. Rogalin, Respondent, against New York City Teachers' Retirement Board, Appellant.

Argued January 18, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

*665
      *William G. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Nicholas Bucci*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for appellant.

*Austin B. Mandel*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Lehman, Ch. J., Finch and Lewis, JJ., dissent on the ground that the filing of charges and suspension from a position in the public service terminates such service conditionally or at least interrupts it and retirement must await restoration to the public service. *(Matter of Eberle*v. *La Guardia,*285 N. Y. 247.)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR S E N V AR DA NY AN , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74953 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 604- 957 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A r s e n V ar dany an, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of A rm e ni a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74953 2 am o tio n to r e o p e n . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g V ar d an y an ’s m o tio n to re o p en b ec au se th e m o ti o n w as filedm o re th an th re e y ea rs af ter th e B IA ’s S e p te m b e r2 , 2 0 0 4 , o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2 ) (m o t i o n t o reo p en m u st g e n e r a llyb e f

ile dw ith in 9 0 d ay s o f

th e f in a l o r d e r ) , an dV ar d an y an f a ile dto e s t abl i s h tha the a c t e d w i th the due di l i ge nc e r e qui r e d f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng, se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 8 9 7 ( d e a d lin e c an b e e q u itab lyto lle d“w h e n ap e titio n e ris prevent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on er ac t s w i th d ue di l i gence”) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David NAVARRETE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 14, 2017

Jonathan I. Shapiro, Helen H. Hong, Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony E. Colombo, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Anthony E. Colombo Jr., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

“We review the district court’s interpretation of the [U.S. Sentencing] Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” *United States v. Treadwell,*593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The record establishes that the district court considered the enumerated factors in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 when assessing whether Navar-rete should receive a sentence reduction for playing a minor role in the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Defense counsel listed all five factors in the guidelines commentary, and the district court stated that it had “considered all of the application notes of 3B1.2.” We assume that district judges know the law and understand their obligation to consider all of the [sentencing] factors.” *United States*
      *537
      *v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). “The district court need not tick off each of the [sentencing] factors to show that it has considered them.” *Id.*The district court did not improperly rely solely upon Navarrete’s “essential role” in the conspiracy, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a minor role sentence reduction.

2. Navarrete’s sentencing chart and the base offense level used by the district court establish that he was not sentenced as a direct money launderer, and there is no doubt that Navarrete knew the laundered funds were the proceeds of cocaine sales or were intended to promote the distribution of cocaine. The district court therefore properly applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1).

3. The record establishes that the district court considered all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including mitigating factors, *see Carty,*520 F.3d at 992, and under plain, error review, Navarrete cannot show that the district court’s reliance bn any extraneous information caused him significant prejudice, *see United States v. Warr,*530 F.3d 1152, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008). Navarrete’s sentence was thus not procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ira COLVIN v. Terry DUNCAN

2160182

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert F. Coyle, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*David P. Siegel*for motion.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Harold P. Sussman*of counsel), opposed.

Motion to fix bail dismissed. The Supreme Court of the United States has denied application for certiorari. (See 320 U. S. 762.)
#### In the Matter of Robert B. Smith et al., Respondents, against Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Argued May 19, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*567
      *Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Nicholas Bucci*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for Board of Education and others, appellants, and *Arthur S. Gales*for Sam Edelson and others, appellants.

*Michael M. Platsman*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippet, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7619

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

Demetrius Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Harrison appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence of imprisonment by nine months. Because the district court correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to grant Harrison’s motion, we affirm. *See United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-71 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 20,000,000
<COMMON>                                   120,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ERCELY W. COLEMAN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1790

[ November 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mariya Weekes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 90

- 5417CF10A

.

Ercely W. Coleman, Florida City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ERB ER and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Peter Mateja, Chief Executive Officer and Director, of Smart Energy
      Solutions, Inc., Inc. (the “Company”) and Edward Braniff, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, under the standards set forth and solely for
      the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on
      Form
      10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      April 12, 2007




/s/
              Peter
              MatejaPeter
                    Mateja
                  Chief
                    Executive Officer and Director
                  (Principal
                    Executive Officer)




/s/
              Edward
              BraniffEdward
                  Braniff
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                (Principal
                  Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 19, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Fifth Circuit

_________________________ No. 03-50924 Summary Calendar

_________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, SANDRA TEJADA; LORENA PAZ AGUILAR, Defendants - Appellants.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1988-1-DB

_________________________ Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sandra Tejada and Lorena Paz Aguilar challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions for conspiracy and for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. They contend that the evidence is insufficient to show that they were aware that approximately 4.9 kilograms of cocaine were hidden beneath the dashboard of a borrowed vehicle that they presented at the Desert Haven, Texas,1 See United States v. Runyon , 290 F.3d 223, 238 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888 (2002); United States v. Ramos-Garcia , 184 F.3d 463, 465-67 (5th Cir. 1999).

2 See United States v. Dean , 59 F.3d 1479, 1492 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. L’Hoste , 640 F.2d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1981). 2 Border Patrol checkpoint. In light of the value of the cocaine, the fact that Tejada and Aguilar lied to law enforcement officials about the extent of their contact with the borrowed vehicle, their nervousness, and their implausible vacation plans, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knew that there was cocaine hidden inside their vehicle. 1 Tejada and Aguilar also argue that the district court erred by refusing to admit exculpatory hearsay testimony. We find no clear error in the district court’s determination that the trustworthiness of the out-of-court statement was not adequately corroborated and no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to exclude the testimony. 2

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Harvey LITTLECALF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30196

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*625Submitted August 31, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed October 12, 2017

John David Sullivan, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

David Merchant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Billings), Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Eric Littlecalf appeals his convictions for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1153(a), and 3559(f)(3), and felony child abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(b) and Montana Code Annotated § 45-5-212(1) and (2). The convictions stem from injuries suffered by K.L., his eight-month-old son. Littlecalf contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. We affirm.

There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, *“any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Evidence at trial established that K.L. suffered a skull fracture and subdural he-matoma. The government presented evidence that Littlecalf admitted to striking K.L. and that K.L.’s injuries were consistent with Littlecalfs admission. One of KL.’s treating physicians testified that KL.’s injuries involved the protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body member, organ, or mental faculty, and two of KL.’s treating physicians testified that his injuries involved extreme physical pain.

Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict Little-calf.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Wilson H. Gardenier, App’lt, v. Hiram Eldred, Resp’t.

Order modified by striking therefrom all that portion declaring the appellant guilty of misconduct and awarding an attachment, and as modified affirmed, vithout costs of this appeal to either party.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 14, 2003
|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,070,172              66,464,892
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        178,087,357             164,035,194
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             224,157,529             230,500,086
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   8,938,652               4,092,953
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 215,218,877             226,407,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               224,157,529             230,500,086
<TRADING-REVENUE>                          (1,866,398)               8,576,034
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         3,135,549               2,773,678
<COMMISSIONS>                                4,402,229               5,378,893
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,133,078)               5,970,839
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (3,133,078)               5,970,839
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,133,078)               5,970,839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.91)                    3.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.91)                    3.48
        

</TABLE>