alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed June 1, 1891.

#### Joseph E. Hinds, Resp’t, *v.*James C. Kellogg, App’lt.

Motion for re-argument or for leave to go to the court of appeals. Leave is granted to appellant to appeal to the court of appeals.
Dated: 3/29/2007                                                                        In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/Bruce Kaiserman                                                                    Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of  Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-5 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**LaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianOcwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as ServicerSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer and Master ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
Exhibit 99.1


                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.


                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      I, Kenneth W. Bell, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S,C,
Section 1350, that:

      (1)  the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
           December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
           all material respects, the financial condition and results of
           operations of the Company.



Date: March 24, 2003
                               /s/ Kenneth W. Bell
                              ____________________________________
                              Kenneth W. Bell
                              Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L.
Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2009 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|December 9, 2009                    
|                                    
|/s/    Gerald L.
Storch             
|Gerald L. Storch                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcial FALCON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50464

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*682Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Attorney, DOJ—Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, AUSA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marcial Falcon appeals from the 2015 judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a ten-month sentence. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Falcon’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Falcon the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

The record reflects that, after Falcon served his ten-month sentence and was placed on supervised release, his supervised release was again revoked. Because the sentence imposed for the 2015 revocation is no longer in effect, we can provide no effective relief to Falcon. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as moot. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 07-13-00089-CR

John Dennis Clayton Anthony

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 287th District Court of

 Bailey County

February 12, 2015

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

 Concurring Opinion by

 Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated February 12, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and this cause is

remanded to the trial court.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A029
#### In the MATTER OF: Wilfred SHEPPARD Debtor Wilfred Sheppard, Appellant v. Arcelia Love, Appellee

No. 16-51445 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 20, 2017

• Wilfred Sheppard, Pro Se

David Charles Alford, Pakis, Giotes, Page & Burleson, P.C., Waco, TX, for Ap-pellee

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wilfred Sheppard appeals the bankruptcy court’s ruling that a debt he owes his sister—a million dollar state court judgment she obtained in a dispute about a real estate partnership—is not dischargeable. Sheppard’s failure to provide the district court or this court with a transcript of the bankruptcy court’s oral ruling prevents him from demonstrating any factual error. *In re Foster,*644 Fed.Appx. 336, 338 (5th Cir. 2016). He also cannot challenge the validity of the state court default judgment in this bankruptcy proceeding. *See In re Reitnauer,*152 F.3d 341, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1998). His other arguments were either not raised below or are unavailing. 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.
**Exhibit 35.1**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toWaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee,  and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, the following with respect to Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006-HE4 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

                                                                       

                                                                          /s/H. John Berens
| ___________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 05/05-0312]

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 05/05-0312 issued to Freeport Financial SBIC Fund, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2022-04227 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Dennis Russell HOOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Mike Winters, Sheriff, Defendants, and David Penkava, Deputy, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35521

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 10, 2017 Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington

Filed October 18, 2017

Luke Alexander Eaton, AGWA—Office of the Washington Attorney General (Turn-water) Tumwater, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Joel C. Benton, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel, Medford, OR, for Defendants

Joel C. Benton, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Devin D. Huseby, Jackson County Counsel, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

While on patrol, Defendant Deputy David Penkava pulled over Plaintiff Dennis *652Russell Hooper, believing that he was driving without a valid Oregon license, and cited Plaintiff for traffic violations. The state court acquitted Plaintiff of the citations. He then brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant had pulled him over without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A jury found for Defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new tidal on the ground of unfair surprise. The district court denied the motion, and Plaintiff timely appeals. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007), we affirm.

Defendant’s original declaration contained certain factual inaccuracies and failed to include some information. But during his pretrial deposition, Defendant corrected the inaccuracies and supplied the missing information. Plaintiff took the deposition in August 2014, and the trial did not occur until February 2015. Defendant’s testimony at trial was consistent with his deposition testimony. Moreover, the defense theory remained unchanged: that Defendant possessed information that led him to believe Plaintiff was driving without a valid Oregon license. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not surprised, unfairly or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided *652by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.2


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT 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 Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary M. Ebele, Principal Financial Officer of CAI Equipment
Leasing V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Partnership.


By:    /s/ Mary M. Ebele                                Dated: August 13, 2004
       -----------------
       Mary M. Ebele
Title: Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RASC Series 2006-KS9 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports 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  the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  U.S.  Bank  National
Association.


Date:  March 26, 2007

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
       Name: Anthony N. Renzi
       Title: Managing Director
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAROLD RUDOLPH LIGHTBURN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-1891

May 24, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine A. 

Marlewski, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### The J. Kunz Brewing Co., Resp’t, *v.*Louis R. Astor, App’lt.

Appeal from tenth district court.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered in the ninth district court, costs to-appellant to abide the event.
#### William Carranza GALVEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70407

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed April 10, 2017

Michael Raymond Devitt, Esquire, University of San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CÁ, David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs *&*Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

*489Jesi J. Carlson, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Ann M. Welhaf, Attorney, 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: CLIFTON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner William Carranza Galvez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal and denial of a motion to suppress. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition for review.

1. The BIA correctly found no error in the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress or in the IJ’s decision not to hold a hearing on that motion. Although “under the clearly established law of this circuit evidence must be suppressed [in a removal proceeding] if it was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment,” *Orhorhaghe v. INS,*38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994), the facts set forth in Petitioner’s declaration in support of his motion to suppress did not present a prima facie case of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation.

2. Petitioner did not exhaust his detention-based claims, and the Court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....”); *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “§ 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars [this Court], for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below”).

3.Petitioner also failed to exhaust his due process claims, and accordingly the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider those claims as well. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1262(d)(1); *Barron,*358 F.3d at 678 (noting that although “the principle of exhaustion may exclude certain constitutional challenges that are not within the competence of administrative agencies to decide,” due process claims that do not “involve more than ‘mere procedural error’ that an administrative tribunal could remedy” are subject to the exhaustion requirement).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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>
American Wagering, Inc.
Financial Data Schedule Required under:
Appendix A to Item 601 (c) of Regulation S-B
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,720,169
<SECURITIES>                                 6,526,335
<RECEIVABLES>                                  356,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (95,209)
<INVENTORY>                                    390,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               406,008
<PP&E>                                       9,161,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,335,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,084,229
<BONDS>                                      6,792,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,408
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,380,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,335,803
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,510,837
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,326,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               918,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,733,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,733,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,733,617)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>