alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,085
<INVENTORY>                                      2,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,898
<PP&E>                                          89,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,479
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (69,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (836)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (68,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68,818)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.94)


</TABLE>
ACCEPTED 04-14-00883-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/20/2015 9:51:59 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
#### Lavell FLYE, Appellant, v. Robert F. PARRATT, Warden, Appellee.

No. 80-2161.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 22, 1981.

Decided June 5, 1981.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 30, 1981.

*153Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., G. Roderic Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb., for appellee.

Roger C. Lott, Lincoln, Neb., for appellant.

Before GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and McMANUS,* District Judge.

*

 The Hon. Edward J. McManus, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Lavell Flye was convicted in the District Court of Box Butte County, Nebraska, of stabbing Nelson Boerschig with intent to kill, wound, or maim. In this federal habeas corpus proceeding, he claims that he has been deprived of liberty without due process of law because the state trial court did not *sua spon te*hold a hearing on his competency to understand the proceedings against him, and because his court-appointed counsel, a public defender, was ineffective in not requesting a competency hearing. The District Court1 examined the state-court transcript and held an evidentiary hearing of its own. It then, in a thorough but concise opinion, rejected petitioner’s claims and denied the writ.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14. Flye’s mental competency had been questioned in an earlier case before the same state court, but he had been found competent to stand trial after a two-month stay at the Lincoln Regional Center. The same trial judge and the same court-appointed lawyer had been involved in the earlier case, which ended about a year before the proceeding out of which the present petition arises. In these circumstances, we agree with the District Court that the state court had no sufficient reason to doubt Flye’s ability to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his own defense. See *Drope v. Missouri,*420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).2

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Robert V. Denney, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

2

. It is unnecessary to discuss the legal effect of a letter written by Flye to the District Court, disclaiming any interest in further challenging his conviction. Nor do we address the contention that Flye’s counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate investigation. This argument, rejected below for what seem to us entirely sufficient reasons, was not raised on appeal.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00345

- CR

IN RE DOMONIQUE HANK S

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 16, 2019

Do not publish

[OT06]
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 22

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas there was international concern expressed at the Rio

Conference of 1992 about conservation of the seas;

Whereas 1998 has been declared the ‘‘International Year of

the Ocean’’ by the United Nations in an effort to alert

the world to the need for improving the physical and cultural assets offered by the world’s oceans;

Whereas the theme of Expo ’98 is ‘‘The Oceans, a Heritage

for the Future’’;

Whereas Expo ’98 has a fundamental aim of alerting political, economic, and public opinion to the growing importance of the world’s oceans;

Whereas Portugal has established a vast network of relationships through ocean exploration;

Whereas Portugal’s history is rich with examples of the courage and exploits of Portuguese explorers;

Whereas Portugal and the United States have a relationship

based on mutual respect, and a sharing of interests and

ideals, particularly the deeply held commitment to democratic values;

Whereas today over 2,000,000 Americans can trace their ancestry to Portugal; and
2

SCON 22 ES

Whereas the United States and Portugal agreed in the 1995

Agreement on Cooperation and Defense that in 1998 the

2 countries would consider and develop appropriate

means of commemorating the upcoming quincentennial

anniversary of the historic voyage of discovery by Vasco

da Gama: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the United States should fully partici3 pate in Expo ’98 in Lisbon, Portugal, and encourage the

4 private sector to support this worthwhile undertaking.

Passed the Senate September 5, 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 22

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Unitbon, Portugal. ed States should participate in Expo ’98 in Lis-
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 259

To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should

use the disaster reserve established under section 813 of the Agricultural

Act of 1970 to alleviate distress to all livestock producers who have

suffered feed losses due to drought, flooding, or other natural disasters

in 1996 in the most cost efficient manner practicable, including cash

payments from the sale of commodities in the disaster reserve, and

should provide voluntary conservation assistance to persons who hay

or graze on conservation reserve lands, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 12, 1996

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DASCHLE, and

Mr. PRESSLER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of

Agriculture should use the disaster reserve established

under section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 to

alleviate distress to all livestock producers who have suffered feed losses due to drought, flooding, or other natural disasters in 1996 in the most cost efficient manner

practicable, including cash payments from the sale of

commodities in the disaster reserve, and should provide

voluntary conservation assistance to persons who hay

or graze on conservation reserve lands, and for other

purposes.
2

•SRES 259 ATS

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. USE OF DISASTER RESERVE FOR DISASTER AS3 SISTANCE.

4 It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of

5 Agriculture should use the disaster reserve established

6 under section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7

7 U.S.C. 1427a) to alleviate distress to livestock producers

8 caused by drought, flood, or other natural disasters in

9 1996, in the most efficient manner practicable, including

10 cash payments from the sale of commodities currently in

11 the disaster reserve. A livestock producer should be eligible

12 to receive the assistance during the period beginning May

13 1, 1996, and ending not sooner than August 31, 1996.

14 SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

15 It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of

16 Agriculture should use the authorities provided in the Fed17 eral Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

18 (Public Law 104–127) to provide voluntary conservation

19 assistance to any person who is permitted to hay or graze

20 conservation reserve land on an emergency basis.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10478

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Cynthia M, Frey, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, Amanda Brooke Harris, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carmen Anamaria Smarandoiu, FPDCA — Federal Public Defenders Office (San Francisco), San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

’ Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Jones appeals from the district court’s order denying the parties’ joint stipulation for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

*365Jones contends that the district court erred in failing to give adequate consideration to the amended Guidelines range and the implications for public safety of the proposed 10-month reduction. He also argues that the court failed to explain adequately its denial of the parties’ stipulation. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including Jones’s amended Guidelines range and post-sentencing conduct, but determined that on the facts of his particular case, a reduction was unwarranted. Moreover, the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for declining to reduce Jones’s sentence, which are also apparent from the record. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to reduce Jones’s sentence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); *United States v. Lightfoot,*626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 868

AN ACT

To provide authority for leave transfer for Federal employees

who are adversely affected by disasters or emergencies,

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 That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employees

4 Emergency Leave Transfer Act of 1995’’.
2

S 868 ES

1 SEC. 2. (a) Chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code,

2 is amended by adding after subchapter V the following

3 new subchapter:

4 ‘‘SUBCHAPTER VI—LEAVE TRANSFER IN

5 DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES

6 ‘‘§ 6391. Authority for leave transfer program in dis7 asters and emergencies

8 ‘‘(a) For the purpose of this section—

9 ‘‘(1) ‘employee’ means an employee as defined

10 in section 6331(1); and

11 ‘‘(2) ‘agency’ means an Executive agency.

12 ‘‘(b) In the event of a major disaster or emergency,

13 as declared by the President, that results in severe adverse

14 effects for a substantial number of employees, the Presi15 dent may direct the Office of Personnel Management to

16 establish an emergency leave transfer program under

17 which any employee in any agency may donate unused an18 nual leave for transfer to employees of the same or other

19 agencies who are adversely affected by such disaster or

20 emergency.

21 ‘‘(c) The Office of Personnel Management shall es22 tablish appropriate requirements for the operation of the

23 emergency leave transfer program under subsection (b),

24 including appropriate limitations on the donation and use

25 of annual leave under the program. An employee may re-
3

S 868 ES

1 ceive and use leave under the program without regard to

2 any requirement that any annual leave and sick leave to

3 a leave recipient’s credit must be exhausted before any

4 transferred annual leave may be used.

5 ‘‘(d) A leave bank established under subchapter IV

6 may, to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by

7 the Office of Personnel Management, donate annual leave

8 to the emergency leave transfer program established under

9 subsection (b).

10 ‘‘(e) Except to the extent that the Office of Personnel

11 Management may prescribe by regulation, nothing in sec12 tion 7351 shall apply to any solicitation, donation, or ac13 ceptance of leave under this section.

14 ‘‘(f) The Office of Personnel Management shall pre15 scribe regulations necessary for the administration of this

16 section.’’.

17 (b) The analysis for chapter 63 of title 5, United

18 States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the

19 following:

‘‘SUBCHAPTER VI—LEAVE TRANSFER IN DISASTERS AND

EMERGENCIES

‘‘6391. Authority for leave transfer program in disasters and emergencies’’.
4

S 868 ES

1 SEC. 3. The amendments made by section 2 of this

2 Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the Senate October 19 (legislative day, October 18), 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 868

AN ACT

To provide authority for leave transfer for Federal

or emergencies, and for other purposes.employees who are adversely affected by disasters
#### IN RE: Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner.

No. 17-2257

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: December 15, 2017

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:'

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions for a writ of error under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012) seeking the dismissal of the criminal charges against him. He also seeks release on bail pending appeal. We conclude that Nabaya is not entitled to relief.

Federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012). However, petitioners may not obtain relief under § 1651(a) when there is another available remedy. *See United States v. Swaby,*855 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 2017); *United States v. Torres,*282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002), Because Nabaya may assert his claims following entry of a final judgment by the dis*128trict court, relief under § 1651(a) is not warranted.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of error and deny Nabaya’s motion for release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11171

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A088-662-707

ABDUL RAZZAK KANJIANI, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(September 7, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Abdul Razzak Kanjiani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review

of the decision affirming an order that removed him from the United States. The 

Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the findings of the immigration judge 

that Kanjiani was ineligible for asylum because he had been convicted of an 

aggravated felony, he was not credible, and he failed to establish a well-founded 

fear of future religious persecution as a Shia Muslim. We dismiss Kanjiani’s 

petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review Kanjiani’s petition for review. Because 

Kanjiani conceded that he was removable for committing a crime relating to 

controlled substances, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and for committing an 

aggravated felony, id. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), we lack jurisdiction to review the final 

order of removal against him. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Although we retain 

jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), Kanjiani’s challenges to the adverse credibility determination and 

to the weight given to his corroborating evidence are “insufficient to state a legal 

claim over which we have jurisdiction,” Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 

1253 (11th Cir. 2014). Kanjiani also contests the finding that his conviction for 

selling methylenedioxypyrovalerone qualifies as a particularly serious crime, but 

we will not consider an issue that the Board declined to address on appeal. See

Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016).

We DISMISS Kanjiani’s petition for review.

Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit
        35(b)
 
 Annual
        Statement of Compliance


VIA:
      EMAIL





GS
      Mortgage Securities Corp.


85
      Broad
      Street


New
      York,
      New York 10004





Litton
      Loan Servicing LP


4828
      Loop
      Central Drive


Houston,
      Texas 77081





Re:
      C-BASS Trust 2006-CB9 (the "Trust"), C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed
      Certificates, Series 2006-CB9, issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
      Agreement, dated as November 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"), among GS Mortgage
      Securities Corp., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Litton Loan Servicing LP,
      as
      servicer (the "Servicer"), Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization
      LLC,
      as seller (the "Seller"), and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee
      (the
      "Trustee")





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





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





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.




Date: February
      1, 2007





LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L MarikBarbara L. Marik


First
      Vice President
# Official Journal C 336/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 336 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 627 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 336

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 627 October 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 336/01 | Euro exchange rates — 4 October 2019 | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2019/C 336/02 | Commission communication concerning the procedure laid down by Article 1, paragraph 4 of Council Directive 96/67/EC | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 336/01

Euro exchange rates — 4 October 2019

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2019/C 336/02

Commission communication concerning the procedure laid down by Article 1, paragraph 4 of Council Directive 96/67/EC

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 336/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9527 — New Media Investment Group/Gannett Co.) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 336/04 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 336/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9527 — New Media Investment Group/Gannett Co.) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 336/04

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


Pursuant to section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section 1350, chapter  63  of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of  Cyberspace  Vita,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the
"Form  10-K")  of the Company fully complies with the requirements  of  Section
13(a) or 15(d) of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of 1934, and the information
contained  in  the  Form  10-K fairly presents, in all material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 10, 2010

/s/ Geoffrey Alison
-------------------
Geoffrey Alison
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written  statement  required  by Section 906 has been
provided to CYBERSPACE VITA, INC. and will be retained by CYBERSPACE VITA, INC.
and  furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or  its  staff  upon
request.