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

No. 16-41650 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maria Trinidad Lopez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Maria Trinidad Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the. appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Ac*838cordingly, counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th- Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityFebruary 12, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------



                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-36T2
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-36T2


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------


Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re H.D., a Child 

Appellate case number: 01-12-00007-CV

Trial court case number: 1052475

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: May 24, 2013

Party filing motion: appellant, M.D.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle

Date: October 1, 2013
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following FuturesFund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2008                      |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |  |  |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I certify as of the date hereof, solely forthe purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United StatesCode, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

This Certification hasnot been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

 

 
| Date:  December 17,  2007 |   |                                                 | /s/  Victor  J. Salerno |
|------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Victor  J. Salerno                                   |
|                                     |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating |
|                                     |   | Officer,  and Chairman of the Board of Directors     |
|                                     |   |                                                 |
|                                     |   |                                                 |
|                                     |   | /s/  Melody  J. Sullivan                   |
|                                     |   | Melody  J. Sullivan                                  |
|                                     |   | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer               |

 

----
#### The State v. Tierney.

Intoxicating Liquors : nuisance : indictment : evidence. The indictment charged the keeping of a building with the intent to *sell therein,*contrary *to*law, intoxicating liquors, and also charged actual sales therein, but not an unlawful keeping for sale. It was shown that intoxicating liquors were kept on the premises, but no sales were proved. *Held*that the evidence of keeping was improperly admitted, because there was no allegation as to that; and that, as no sales were proved, defendant could not lawfully be convicted, because there remained nothing but the keeping of the building with an unlawful, but unexecuted, intention, which is not a punishable crime. (Compare *State v. Harris, 21*Iowa, 430.)

*Appeal from, Jones District Court.*— Hon. James D. G-iffen, Judge. ■

Filed, March 12, 1888.

*238Indictment for crime of nuisance. Verdict of guilty, and judgment against defendant for line and costs. He appeals.

*Sheean & MeCarn*and *J. O. McOonahy,*for appellant.

*A. J. Balcer,*Attorney General, for the State.

Robinson, J.

The indictment charges that defendant “did keep, use and occupy a certain building, commonly called a saloon, with intent to sell therein, contrary to law, intoxicating liquors, to-wit, whisky, beer, and other intoxicating liquors, the names of which are to the grand jury unknown, and then and there did sell the same, contrary to law.” It is shown that intoxicating liquors were found on the premises, but no sales were proven. It is insisted by appellant that the crime with which he is charged is that of keeping, using and occupying a building, and in selling therein intoxicating- liquors, contrary to law, and that, since no sales were shown, his conviction was illegal. It is not a crime under the statute to keep a building- with intent to sell intoxicating liquors therein contrary to law. If the liquors are not manufactured or sold, they must be kept on the premises, to constitute the offense of nuisance under the statute, and this fact must be alleged in the indictment. *State v. Hass,*22 Iowa, 193. In this case, the indictment does not charge the keeping-for sale, but the selling, of intoxicating liquors. The crime in each case is the same, but the particular circumstances necessary to constitute a complete offense are different; hence they must be charged in the indictment with directness and certainty. Code, sec. 4298. It follows that if not so charged they cannot be proven. In *State*v. *Harris, 27*Iowa, 430, an indictment substantially like the one in controversy was considered, and this court condemned an instruction which charged, in effect, that the crime alleged would be established by proving the keeping of. the building with the intent of *239owning, keeping and selling therein intoxicating liquors, contrary to law, on the ground that it made punishable an unexecuted intention or an incomplete act. The cases we have cited seem to us decisive of the q uestions involved in this appeal. The case is, therefore,

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,803
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     62,370
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        748,493
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 912,093
<DEPOSITS>                                     829,060
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,160
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,294
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                         8,367
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 912,093
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,506
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,564
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,070
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,969
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,101
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,138
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  42
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,567
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,567
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,603
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.36
<LOANS-NON>                                     16,305
<LOANS-PAST>                                       122
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,503
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,870
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,134
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      188
<RECOVERIES>                                        66
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,508
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,508
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         13,508
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario GONZALEZ-FAVELA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 16-50114, 16-50124

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Filed July 3, 2017

Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, i Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Charles Guthrie, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

**

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Dario Gonzalez-Favela appeals the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Favela contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track de*559parture under U.S.S.6. § 5K3.1 because it failed to engage in a comparative analysis of Gonzalez-Favela relative to other defendants with a criminal history category of VI who nevertheless received a fast-track departure. The court did not abuse its discretion. *See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales,*801 F.3d 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (fast-track departure is “purely discretionary”). The record reflects that the court properly denied the departure based on the particular factors of Gonzalez-Fave-la’s case, including the court’s previous grant of a fast-track departure to Gonzalez-Favela, and his extensive immigration and criminal history. *See id.*at 1183-84. Moreover, the aggregate 75-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leticia Aidee ROSALES-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50371

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Nicholas William Pilchak, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Attorney, U.S. Law Center, Corona, 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 **

Leticia Aidee Rosales-Escobedo appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rosales-Escobedo contends that the district court had authority under Rule 36 to strike the stipulation of removal provision from her plea agreement, and that it erred in failing to do so. The record reflects that Rosales-Escobedo voluntarily entered into the plea agreement knowing it contained the stipulation of removal. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that relief is not available to Rosales-Escobedo under Rule 36. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; *United States v. Dickie,*752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating standard of review); *United States v. Kaye,*739 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 “is a narrow provision limited to correction of errors of no more than clerical significance”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Cylink  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 28, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, R. Christopher  Chillingworth,  Vice
President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  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  at the  dates  and  for  the  periods
              indicated.

Date: November 13, 2002                By:      /s/ R. Christopher Chillingworth
                                                --------------------------------
                                                R. Christopher Chillingworth
                                                Vice President of Finance and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Cylink Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the twenty four weeks ended September 15,
l998 included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000  <F1>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-15-1998
<CASH>                                          48,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,600
<INVENTORY>                                     75,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               360,000
<PP&E>                                       1,388,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 643,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,487,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,700
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     627,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,487,200
<SALES>                                        875,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               875,400
<CGS>                                          494,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  494,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Irvin & Taul *vs.*Scobee.

November 14.

Error to the Clarke County Court.

*Mills. County Courts. Statutes.*

¡SUMMARY, Caso 21.

The order awnrding the tvn( 'of *ad quad damiw.ru*in cases *51of mills, must fix the day the inquest is to be hold. It is not necessary to give the day ivben the writ shall issue. Sec 2 Dig. L. K. 93.1; 1 Lit-to!”s I,. K 606.

*50Chief Justice Boyle

delivered *the*Opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to an order of *the county*court of Clarke county, granting leave to the defendant in error to erect a water grist and saw mill and dam upon Stoner.

*51Trini, *Hanson*and *French*for plaintiffs; *Triplett*for defendant.

Various objections are taken by the alignment of error, as well to the original order, directing the writ of *ad quod damnum*as to the subsequent proceeding's. Being of opinion, however, that the original order is not sufficient to warrant the subsequent proceedings, it will not be necessary to notice the objections taken to the latter.

The act of assembly, under which this proceeding was had, expressly requires the court to which the application for leave to build a mill is made, to name the day on which the writ of *ad quod damnum*shall be executed; but in this case, though the court has directed the time when the writ .should issue, which was not required to be done, they have failed to name the day on which the sheriff should cause the jury to meet and hold the inquest.

Judgment must be reversed with costs.