alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS GAYL C ASTR O-DELFIN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10446

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-01038-JGZ-JR -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus Ga y l C a stro-De lfin (“ C a stro” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

m e tha m phe tam ine an d im

porta tion of m e tha m phe tam ine . Se e21 U.S.C . §§ 841, 952, 960. We hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED DEC 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. B e c a use Offic e r Lope z pa

rtic ipate d in the que stioning of C a stro, the a dm ission of Spe c ia l Age nt M o na ha n’ s te stim ony

a bout Offic e r Lope z ’ s transla tions of C a stro’ s sta

te m e nts ra ise s som e he arsa y c o nc e rns. Howe ve r, any e rror in a dm itting Spe c ia l Age n t M ona ha n ’ s te stim ony

wa s ha rm le ss be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt in light of the

ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e of C a stro’ s guilt. This e vide nc e inc lude d C a stro’ s sta te m e nts to the Pa ssport C ontrol Unit, his re c orde d te le phone c onve rsat ions from the de te ntion c e nte r, and the she e r qua ntity of m e tha m phe tam ine he tra

nsporte d, with a

tota l re ta il va lue of a

pproxim ate ly

$1 m illion. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Morale

s , 720 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th C ir. 2013). 2. The a dm ission of Spe c ia l Age n t M ona h an’ s te stim ony

a bout Offic e r Lope z ’ s tra

nsla tions did not viola

te the C onfronta

tion C la use be c a u se Offic e r Lope z te s tifie d at tria l a

nd wa s a va ila ble for c ross-e xam ination. Se e Unite d State s v . Ow e ns , 484 U.S. 554, 558 (1988). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a sse ssing a two-le ve l se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nt for C a stro’ s use of a “ spe c ia l skill.”U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3. C a stro’ s e xpe rie nc e driving la rge tra c tor-tra i le rs a

nd his useof this skill in im porting m e tha

m phe tam i ne a de quate ly support thedistric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Me ndoza , 78 F.3d 460, 465 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D. -2-
Exhibit
      31.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      John
      A. Hupalo, certify that:




l.           I
      have reviewed this annual 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 The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4 (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 agreement in all material respects




5.           All
      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, as
      Indenture Trustee and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
      Agency.




Date:
        September 20, 2007




/s/
              John A. HupaloJohn
                A. Hupalo
              Chief
                Financial Officer and Treasurer
              (senior
                officer in charge of securitization)
              National
                Collegiate Funding
                LLC
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-84,972-01 & WR-84,972-02

EX PARTE BRYON WILLIAMS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. D-1-DC-13-100118-A & D-1-DC-13-100117-A

IN THE 167 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Williams - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
EX-35 (d)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 19, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-SD3

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/31/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)     a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
        or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer
        or Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
        supervision and

(B)     to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
        Servicing Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such
        year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
        such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure
        known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
     2006-SD3 (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/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.as Servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer,
     Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer and Washington Mutual Bank
     as Servicer.

     Dated: May 27, 2008


     /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
HOME
      LOAN


SERVICES


**FORM
      OF ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICER**





Merrill
      Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250
      Vesey
      Street


4
      World
      Financial Center, 10th Floor


New
      York,
      New York 10080





LaSalle
      Bank National Association


135
      South
      LaSalle Street


Suite
      1511


Chicago,
      Illinois 60603


Attention:
              Global
                  Securities and Trust Services - Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors
                  Trust,
                Series
                  2006-FF1


Re:
            Pooling
                  and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of December
                  1, 2006,
                  among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, National
                  City
                  Home Loan Services, Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National
                  Association, as trustee, relating to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors
                  Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
                  2006-FF1




I,
      Steven
      A. Baranet, Vice President of Home Loan Services, Inc. f/k/a National City
      Home
      Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"), hereby certify that:





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





(2)  To
      the
      best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
      its
      obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year
      or
      a portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
      obligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such failure
      known to me and the nature and status thereof.




March
      1,
      2007





Home
      Loan
      Services, Inc.,


f/k/a
      National City Home Loan Services, Inc.


as
      Servicer




/s/
      Steven A. Baranet  Steven
      A.
      Baranet


Vice
      President


**Loan
      Services**


P.O.
      Box
      1838


Pittsburgh,
      PA 15230-1838




Home
                Loan Services is a subsidiary
              of
                Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Co., FSB
**Exhibit 10.57**

 

Delivery Order DTFA01-02-C-23002

Contract DTFA01-02-C-00023

Modification/Revision 1

 

DELIVERY ORDER DO#2

Under Contract No. DTFA01-02-C-00023

 

The purpose of thismodification is to apply the Defense Priority and Allocation Rating to item number7 of the delivery order.

 

1.                                       7.  Defense Priority and Allocation Requirementis hereby deleted and replaced by:

 

7.             Defense Priority and Allocation Requirement

 

The Transportation SecurityAdministration, U.S. Department of Transportation (TSA/DOT) is authorized touse the DO-H8 priority rating in accordance with the provisions of the DefensePriorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 C.F.R. § 700, et seq.)on its contracts and orders placed with U.S. contractors and suppliers,including InVision Technologies, Inc., to support the acquisition of ExplosiveDetection Systems (EDS) machines, including applicable spare parts and servicesubcontracts, for the TSA/DOT Transportation Threat Protection Program (TTPP).  The TTPP is approved as a national defenseprogram as defined in the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, as amended (50U.S.C. App. § 2152(13)).

 

This Rating Authorization isgranted under the authority of Section 101(a) of the DPA of 1950, as amended(50 U.S.C. App. § 2071, et seq,) and the DPAS, and with the concurrenceof the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Except as needed to supportthe procurement of applicable spare parts and maintenance and repair services,this Rating Authorization will terminate upon delivery of all the EDS machinesrequired by TSA/DOT to satisfy machine requirements under the Aviation andTransportation Security Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-71, 155 Stat. 597 (2001)).

 

DO-H8 priority rating herebyapplies to this delivery order.  TheContractor shall follow all requirements of the DPAS regulation (15 C.F.R. §700, et seq.) during the conduct of this delivery order.

 

2.             Except as provided herein, allother terms and conditions remain unchanged.

 

END OF DELIVERY ORDER

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 849 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 849

 To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to protect 
          elected judges against discrimination based on age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 24 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

  Mr. D'Amato introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to protect 
          elected judges against discrimination based on age.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    The second sentence of section 11(f) of the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 630(f)) is amended by inserting ``, 
or to persons holding judicial office'' before the period.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall not apply with respect to 
conduct occurring before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF INTENT
                                     BETWEEN
                      IMPROVENET, INC. AND ETECHLOGIX, INC.


     THIS FIRST  AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF INTENT (the  "Amendment") is dated as of
JUNE 17, 2002 and is entered into by and between  ImproveNet,  Inc. ("IMPV") and
eTechLogix, Inc. ("ETECH") with reference to the following facts:

     A. IMPV and ETECH  entered into a Letter of Intent dated June 10, 2002 (the
"Letter of Intent"); and

     B. IMPV and ETECH  desire to amend the  Letter of Intent in the  manner set
forth herein.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  IN  CONSIDERATION  OF the foregoing  facts and the mutual
agreements set forth below, IMPV and ETECH hereby agree as follows:

     1. Amendment to Letter of Intent.

     (a) The last  sentence  of  paragraph  1 of the  Letter of Intent is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows from and after the date hereof:

     "If a mutually  satisfactory  Definitive  Agreement  is not  executed on or
     before June 21, 2002,  each party shall have the right to either  terminate
     this LOI or continue to negotiate the Definitive Agreement."

     (b) The last  sentence  of  paragraph  3 of the  Letter of Intent is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "On or before June 21, 2002, either party may terminate this LOI if, in its
     sole discretion, it deems the result of such review to be unsatisfactory."

     2. Confirmation of Letter of Intent.  Except as expressly  provided in this
Amendment,  the  Letter of Intent  shall  remain in full force and effect and is
hereby ratified and confirmed.

     3. General. This Amendment (i) shall be binding upon the parties hereto and
their  respective  successors,  agents,   representatives,   assigns,  officers,
directors and employees;  (ii) may not be amended or modified except in writing;
(iii)  represents  the entire  understanding  of the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof; and (iv) may be executed in separate  counterparts,  each
of which shall be deemed an original but all such  counterparts  shall  together
constitute one and the same instrument. In the event of any conflict between the
Letter of Intent and this  Amendment,  the  provisions of this  Amendment  shall
govern.


<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have caused this  Amendment to be
executed as of the date first written above.

IMPROVENET, INC.


By: /s/ Brian Evans
    --------------------------
        Brian Evans
        Secretary


ETECHLOGIX, INC.


By:  /s/ Jeffrey Rassas
    -------------------------
        Jeffrey Rassas
        Chief Executive Officer
#### MUNCHKIN, INC., Appellant v. LUV N’ CARE, LTD., Appellee

2017-1179

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 13, 2017

Travis W. McCallon, Lathrop & Gage LLP, Kansas City, MO, argued for appellant. Also represented by Robert Cameron Garrison; Allen Justin Poplin, Overland Park, KS.

Edward David Manzo, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by Robert M. Chiaviel-lo, Jr., Hartwell Powell Morse, III, Control Services, Inc., Monroe, LA.

(Lourie, Reyna, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The 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>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            141,046
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,055,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                                     2,727,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,201,584
<PP&E>                                             79,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                     17,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,772,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,727,821
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           550
<COMMON>                                              389
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,418,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    6,772,312
<SALES>                                         6,656,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,656,543
<CGS>                                           5,473,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,473,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    76,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                73,838
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       73,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .02
        


</TABLE>