alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diana LOVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17448 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 28, 2017)

Michelle B. Alvarez, Roger Cruz, Wifre-do A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Kevin B. Hart, Rebecca D. Ryan, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington Criminal I Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sheryl Joyce Lowenthal, Law Offices of Sheryl Lowenthal, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

*752Before MARCUS, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Lovera’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Bascomb,*451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gosada MUNOZ, a.k.a. Vincecio Duke, a.k.a. Agapito Godines, a.k.a. Martin Godines, a.k.a. Agapito Gosada, a.k.a. Marcos Martinez, a.k.a. Rolando Martinez, a.k.a. Jose Moran, a.k.a. Agapito Munoz, a.k.a. Gasada Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guanerges Munoz, a.k.a. Gosada Guaners Munoz, a.k.a. Gosoda Munoz, a.k.a. Antonio Nunez, a.k.a. Marcos Ortega, a.k.a. Morcus Ortega, a.k.a. Javier Ramirez, a.k.a. Jose Luis Rodriguez, a.k.a. Daniel Romeo, a.k.a. Tiny, a.k.a. Tiny Locos, Defendant-Appellant,

*597No. 16-50019

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Russell S. Babcock, Attorney, Law Office of Russell Babcock, 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 **

Gosada Munoz challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Munoz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and respond to his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence. We review for plain error. *See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court listened to Munoz’s arguments and explained that it had reviewed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. The court’s failure to do more was not plain error. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT - 99.1

                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition, results of
                  operations, and cash flows of the Company.


/s/      Mossimo Giannulli
--------------------------
         Mossimo Giannulli
         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
         October 30, 2002
#### Stephen C. SOKOL v. Stanley J. GUSSACK, Edwin Swan, Individually and d/b/a Swan’s Service, Appellants.

No. 15760.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 27, 1966.

Decided Oct. 13, 1966.

*577Maurice J. Frank, Jersey City, N. J. (Oppenheim & Oppenheim, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellants.

Marvin Lieberman, Perth Amboy, N. J. (Jacob, Alfred & Richard Levinson, Richard J. Levinson, Perth Amboy, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injury. Reversal of the judgment is urged on two grounds.

The first specification of error relates to the denial of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. An examination of the original record reveals that the motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence and the issues were submitted to the jury on instructions to which there were no objections. It is well settled that the failure of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence constitutes a waiver of any error there might have been in the denial of a similar motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Company, 348 F.2d 129, 132 (3 Cir., 1965) and cases therein cited. The waiver precludes consideration of the alleged error on appeal. Ibid.

The second specification of error relates to the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its denial is ordinarily not reviewable in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 350 F.2d 479, 482 (3 Cir., 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 987, 86 S.Ct. 549, 15 L.Ed.2d 475. There is no such showing in the instant case.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
**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**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended February 28, 2014, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian L. Oberbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Henri J. Steenkamp, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  May 27, 2014 | /s/   CHRISTIAN L. OBERBECK |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                          | Christian   L. Oberbeck     |
| * *                      | *Chief Executive Officer*   |

 
|     | /s/   HENRI J. STEENKAMP                                                 |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     | Name:   Henri J. Steenkamp                                               |
| * * | *Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Chief   Compliance Officer* |

 

----
#### Martha Jo PETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-55375

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Martha Jo Peters, Pro Se

Lynette Gridiron Winston, Robert Coll-ings Little, Esquire, Attorney, Anglin Fle-welling Rasmussen Campbell *&*Trytten, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee

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 **

Martha Jo Peters appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to' state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Peters’ action because Peters failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. *See United States v. FMC Corp.,*531 F.3d 813, 820 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Ujnder Ninth Circuit precedent, *incidental*third-party beneficiaries may not enforce consent decrees,...”); *see also Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *562the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.Sd 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 18 and 21) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### John Clifford JAMES, Appellant, v. Lawrence E. WILSON, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Appellee.

No. 20632.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1966.

John Clifford James, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Michael J. Phelan, Paul N. Halvonik, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before MADDEN, Judge of the Court of Claims, and KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In the light of Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), the district court correctly rejected appellant’s petition for habeas corpus insofar as it was based upon Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The district court erred, however, in holding that “The remaining allegations of the petition relate to questions of evidence which do not raise a substantial federal question.” As we read the petition, appellant alleges that his conviction was based in part upon (1) oral admissions obtained from appellant by the use of threats and physical violence, and (2) the confession of an accomplice who was not produced for cross-examination. These allegations raise substantial constitutional issues. We do not consider whether appellant has exhausted his state remedies since the district court has not yet passed upon that question.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         281,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,410,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,353,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,321,105
<PP&E>                                          79,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,130,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,503,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        590
<COMMON>                                           491
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,375,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,130,267
<SALES>                                     19,547,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,547,695
<CGS>                                       17,529,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,529,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                237,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                   122,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02



</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7011 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

209 Main Street in Duncan, Arizona, as the ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. CISCOMANI (for himself, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. STANTON, 

and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 209 Main Street in Duncan, Arizona, as the 

‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 209 Main Street in Duncan, Ari6 zona, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sandra Day 

7 O’Connor Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7011 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### I. & G. N. R. R. CO. & BOST.

Appeal from Hays county.

*Easement.*— The use of a farm road by the owner of the land over which it passes, does not create an easement appurtenant to the land ; and a grant by the owner to a railroad company of the right of way without reserving the right to use such road will bar the owner from recovering damages for its obstruction.

Opinion by

White, P. J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 708 

To require the Natural Resources Conservation Service to review the national 

conservation practice standards, taking into consideration climate benefits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Ms. BROWNLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

review the national conservation practice standards, taking into consideration climate benefits, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Climate Agricultural 

5 Conservation Practices Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 708 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE BENEFITS IN CON2 SERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS. 

3 Section 1242(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 

4 (16 U.S.C. 3842(h)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

6 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘1 

7 year after the date of enactment of the Agri8 culture Improvement Act of 2018’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘5 years after the date of enactment of the 

10 Climate Agricultural Conservation Practices 

11 Act’’; 

12 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘; 

13 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

14 (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking the 

15 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(E) evaluate the climate benefits of the 

18 standards.’’; 

19 (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘conserva20 tion innovations and’’ and inserting ‘‘climate bene21 fits, conservation innovations, and’’; and 

22 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(5) CLIMATE BENEFIT DEFINED.—In this sub24 section, the term ‘climate benefit’ means— 

25 ‘‘(A) a reduction in agricultural green26 house gas emissions; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 708 IH

1 ‘‘(B) an increase in carbon sequestration; 

2 or 

3 ‘‘(C) mitigation against, or adaptation to, 

4 increased weather volatility.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6660 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6660

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to stipulate that a parking 
 benefit is not a qualified parking fringe benefit unless an employer 
 offers employees the option to receive an equivalent cash benefit or 
     alternative tax-exempt benefit in lieu of the parking benefit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2023

Mr. Blumenauer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to stipulate that a parking 
 benefit is not a qualified parking fringe benefit unless an employer 
 offers employees the option to receive an equivalent cash benefit or 
     alternative tax-exempt benefit in lieu of the parking benefit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parking Cash-Out Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. OPTION FOR CASH BENEFIT REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(5)(C) is amended by striking ``or 
by carpool.'' and inserting ``or by carpool if the employer offers the 
employee the option to receive, in lieu of the qualified parking, the 
fair market value of the parking.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6304 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6304

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona, as the ``Adolfo `Harpo' 
                          Celaya Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADOLFO ``HARPO'' CELAYA POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Adolfo `Harpo' Celaya Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Adolfo 
`Harpo' Celaya Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1027
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1500
<OTHER-SE>                                         473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1027
<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>
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





In connection with the Annual Report of
RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Matre, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:





(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 Company.





/s/ David W. MatreDavid
      W. Matre
                      Principal
      Financial Officer
                      March
      18, 2010