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

No. 17-10313 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 5, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Danny Duane Burns, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ashley Simpson appeals the 262-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. She challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a downward departure and the application of the two-level' enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5) for importation of methamphetamine. The Government has moved for summary affir-mance in lieu of filing an appellate brief or, *192alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure unless the district court held the mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to depart. *United States v. Sam,*467 F.3d 857, 861 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, the record does not reflect that the district court was unaware that it could depart; instead, the record supports that the court concluded that Simpson’s motion for a downward departure should be denied because a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was appropriate. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider any argument challenging the district court’s decision to deny Simpson’s motion for a downward departure. *See Sam,*467 F.3d at 861.

Simpson next asserts that the district court erred in applying the two-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(5) on grounds that there was no proof that she knew the methamphetamine came from Mexico. However, she correctly concedes that her assertion is foreclosed by *United States v. Serfass,*684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012), and seeks only to preserve it for further review.

Summary affirmance is not appropriate, and the Government’s motion is DENIED. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. The appeal is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 163 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
S. RES. 163

    To require the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate to hold 
    hearings in any case involving a Senator in which the committee 
 determines that there is substantial credible evidence which provides 
substantial cause to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction 
                 of the Select Committee has occurred.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 11 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

 Mrs. Boxer submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Select Committee on Ethics

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To require the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate to hold 
    hearings in any case involving a Senator in which the committee 
 determines that there is substantial credible evidence which provides 
substantial cause to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction 
                 of the Select Committee has occurred.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. ETHICS HEARINGS INVOLVING SERIOUS ETHICS VIOLATIONS BY 
              MEMBERS.

    Section 2(d)(5) of Senate Resolution 338, agreed to July 24, 1964, 
is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``The 
Select Committee shall hold hearings in any investigation conducted 
under subparagraph (A) that involves a complaint against a Member. The 
hearing requirement may be waived by the Select Committee by a recorded 
majority vote of the members of the Select Committee.''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any investigation 
within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Ethics pending on 
the date of adoption of this resolution and any investigation commenced 
after the date of adoption.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-HY13 (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
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      -----------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodderick GOINS Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2129

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 13, 2017

Filed: November 15, 2017

*541Hunter Bridges, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rodderick Goins, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rodderick Goins directly appeals the within-guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Goins’s sentence. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review,2 we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting that if the sentence is within the guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. Goins pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, but we decline to enforce the appeal waiver. *See United States v. Boneshirt, 662*F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011).
#### Dewey Steven TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip EARLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15184

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

*685Dewey Steven Terry, Pro Se

Matthew Marvin Grigg, Attorney, Nancy E. Hudgins, Attorney, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, Kyle Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Phillip Earley, Gary Lore-do, Joe Dobie

Kenneth Robert Williams, Esquire, Kenneth R. Williams — Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dewey Steven Terry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wallis v. Baldwin,*70 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Terry’s Eighth Amendment claim because Terry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether “he himself [wa]s being exposed to unreasonably high levels” of asbestos and lead. *Helling v. McKinney,*509 U.S. 25, 35-36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (setting forth evidence needed to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference based on exposure to second-hand smoke); *see also Wallis,*70 F.3d at 1077.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Terry’s state law claims because Terry did not comply with the claim-presentment requirement of the California Government Claims Act. *See*Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2; *Ellis v. City of San Diego, Cal.,*176 F.3d 1183, 1190 (9th Cir. 1999); *California v. Superior Court (Bodde),*32 Cal.4th 1234, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 90 P.3d 116, 122 (2004).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terry’s motion to alter or amend the judgment because Terry failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. *See Dixon v. Wallowa County,*336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for granting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

Appellee Young’s request to strike settlement documents attached to Terry’s filings, set forth in his answering brief, is granted. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to strike Exhibit 1 to Docket Entries 10,12, and 29 because all three of the exhibits contain confidential settlement information.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ravenna Sanders-Bey, Plaintiff,
v. Ken Salazar, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 

# FILED MAY 1 9 2010 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

Defendant. 

# 10 U830
MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffhas filed an application to proceed without prepayment offees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon whichreliefmay be granted. The plaintiffis identified as a member ofthe WashitawNation ofMuurs, and this case is identified as a putative class action related to Cabell v. Salazar, 96-cv-1285 (JR) (D.D.C.). Compl. at 1-3. Making reference to an "Indigenous Washitaw Contract" dated June 20, 1797, and confirmed and ratified by Congress onApril 29, 1816, see Compl. at 3, the plaintiffseeks reliefinthe form oforders for two writs ofmandamus, one "inthe nature ofa Subrogation/ Indemnification Action for both 'compensatory' and 'exemplary' damages," and the other for "'just compensation' in an amount assessed by the Court for Fifth Amendment 'takings'
...." Grounds and ReliefSought at 2. The request for mandamus reliefrequires that this complaintbe dismissed. The remedy ofmandamus "is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances." Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). Only "exceptional circumstances" warranting "ajudicial usurpation ofpower" willjustify issuance ofthe writ. Gulfstream 

# sAerospace Corp. 

### v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345,353 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that mandamus is "anextraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary cases") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus is available only if"(1) the plaintiffhas a clearright to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." In re Medicare ReimbursementLitigation, 414 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). With respect to the first two requirements, mandamus is available "only where the duty to beperformed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, butrequire it; the duty must be clear and indisputable." Lozada Colon v. Us. Dep'ta/State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (per curiam)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The complaint does not, and onthese facts cannot, establish eitherthatthe plaintiffhas a clear right to the reliefrequested orthat the defendant has a clear duty to perform a ministerial, clearly defined, and peremptory act. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted. A separate order accompanies this memorandu

Date:

# ~ States District Judge

2
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Michelle Gill, 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 GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-19 (the "Exchange Act
     periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
     fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
     material respects; 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:
     Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage
     Funding, Inc. as Servicer, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as Servicer, Wells
     Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
     Securities Administrator.

     Dated:  June 30, 2008

     /s/ Michelle Gill
     Michelle Gill, Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 114

To refer S. 740, entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William

A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton’’ to the chief judge of the

United States Court of Federal Claims for a report thereon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. HATCH submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To refer S. 740, entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Inslaw,

Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton’’ to the chief judge of the United States Court of

Federal Claims for a report thereon.

1 Resolved, That the bill S. 740, entitled ‘‘A bill for the

2 relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy

3 Burke Hamilton’’ now pending in the Senate, together

4 with all the accompanying papers, is referred to the chief

5 judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The

6 chief judge shall proceed with the same in accordance with

7 the provisions of sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28,

8 United States Code, and report thereon to the Senate, at
2

•SRES 114 ATS

1 the earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact

2 and conclusions thereon as shall be sufficient to inform

3 the Congress of the nature and character of the demand

4 as a claim, legal or equitable, against the United States

5 or a gratuity and the amount, if any, legally or equitably

6 due to the claimants from the United States.

Æ
| 43 | Form 10-Q |
|----|-----------|

**Exhibit  32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), and Frank A. D’Amelio, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|  | (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 6, 2004

 

 

 

/s/ Patricia F. Russo

 

 

 

Patricia F. RussoChairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

/s/ Frank A. D’Amelio

 

 

 

Frank A. D’AmelioExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer

 

 

  |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.23




Waiver and Release
 
  This Waiver (this “Waiver”) is made as of October 27, 2010, between CleanTech Innovations, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Bei Lu (“Lu”).
  In consideration of the release by the Company below, Lu hereby consents and agrees to waive all rights to the payment of RMB 24,781,180 due under the Approval on Share Transfer Regarding Creative Bellows Manufacture Co., Ltd., dated September 15, 2010, from the Department of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of Liaoning Province.
  In consideration for the execution of the Waiver, Company does hereby release and forever discharge Lu and her successors and assigns of and from all claims, actions, causes of action, liability, demands and damages of whatever name or nature, whether at law or in equity, in any manner having arisen, arising, or to arise from the beginning of time to the date hereof.
  
   CLEANTECH INNOVATIONS, INC.
   /s/ Bei Lu
 By: Bei Lu
 Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
 
  /s/ Bei Lu______________________
 Bei Lu
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0483 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. JAMIE CAL FUSON ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including May 31 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2022

03/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0483