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

No. 17-50711 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 15, 2018

Joseph H.. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristin L. Davidson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramiro Ortiz-Membreno appeals the 37-month sentence imposed after his convic*248tion for illegal reentry after deportation, Ortiz-Membreno contends that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction and, therefore, his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) violated due process by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum provided by Section 1326(a). He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve his claim for possible future review.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case[.]” *Gro-endyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158,1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969).

As Ortiz-Membreno concedes, his sole claim is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres.*The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *248published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Slip Op. 00-32 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________ : SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH; FAG : KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHAFER AG : and FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION, : : Plaintiffs and Defendant- : Intervenors, : : Consol. Court No. v. : 97-01-00054-S : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor and : Plaintiff, : : and : : NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA and : NTN KUGELLAGERFABRIK (DEUTSCHLAND) : GmbH; SNR ROULEMENTS, : : Defendant-Intervenors. : ________________________________________: JUDGMENT This Court having received and reviewed the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, SKF USA Inc. v. United States , 23 CIT __, Slip Op. 99-127 (Dec. 2, 1999) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce having complied with the Court’s remand, it is hereby ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on March 1, 2000 are affirmed in their entirety; and it is furtherConsol. Court No. 97-01-00054-S Page 2

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

______________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: March 29, 2000 New York, New York
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 CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-21
              (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 26, 2007


          /s/ Steve Bailey
          ---------------------------
          Steve Bailey
          Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          43,596
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  597,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                   328,949
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               423,674
<PP&E>                                       1,202,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,694,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,730,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,634
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,026,925)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,694,862
<SALES>                                        506,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               506,491
<CGS>                                          828,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               575,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,009,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,009,766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,009,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        





</TABLE>
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
  (1)  The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the 2014-B SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of October 15, 2014 (as supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling trust, NILT Trust, as UTI beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and
 (2)  To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
  rd
 /s/ Mark Kaczynski ___________________
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

Kurt J. Hein v Terri Jo Hein

Docket No. 353272; 353285

LC No. 2019

- 034834

- DO Kathleen Jansen Presiding Judge

Amy Ronayne Krause

Michael F. Gadola

Judges

The April 29, 2021 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error: The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 6 will now read: “Consequently, plaintiff is also correct in asserti ng that by default, defendant’s half of his pension would revert to him upon defendant’s death, in the event she predeceases him.”

In all other respects, the April 29, 2021 opinion remains unchanged.

_______________________________

Presiding Judge
----

**ANNUAL      STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

**Pooling      and Servicing Agreement dated December 1, 2006 (the "Pooling and Servicing      Agreement") by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as      depositor, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and Paying Agent,      Midland Loan Services, as Master Servicer and LNR Partners, Inc. as Special      Servicer **

**COMM      2006-C8**

| 1.   | I                have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under                the                Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end                of the                fiscal year 2006 (the “Reporting                Period”)                and the Special Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing                Agreement has been made under my supervision;                and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | To                the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer                has                fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement                in all                material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1167/2004

of 24 June 2004         

fixing the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sugar (1), and in particular Article 27(5)(a) and (15),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and in Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, are fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2004.

For the Commission

Erkki LIIKANEN            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2196/2003 (OJ L 328, 17.12.2003, p. 17).

(2)OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 740/2003 (OJ L 106, 29.4.2003, p. 12).

----

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 25 June 2004 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

----
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May 13,2008

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               that thisquarterly report  on Form 10-QSB forthe period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer              |
|   | and  President                        |

 

----
#### Aaron DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden; Harold Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7314

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 8, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se,

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Doxie, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and request under Fed. R. Civ. P, 60(b) for reconsideration of its prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid*v. *Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sat*192isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595,146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Doxie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the 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.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 99.1



                                 Biofield Corp.

                         1025 Nine North Drive, Suite K
                          Alpharetta, Georgia USA 30004

                                Tel: 770-740-8180
                                Fax: 770-740-9366




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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biofield Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David M. Long, Jr.,
M.D., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




/s/ DAVID M. LONG, JR.
-------------------------------------
David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       19
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose VALERIO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40566 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 31, 2018

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

Jose Valerio, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*237PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Valerio 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Valerio 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. Accordingly, 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.
# Official Journal C 183A/3 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 183A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 633 June 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 183A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 633 June 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Union Intellectual Property Office |
| 2020/C 183 A/01 | Vacancy notice — EXT/20/42/AD 11/BOA Member | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Union Intellectual Property Office

2020/C 183 A/01

Vacancy notice — EXT/20/42/AD 11/BOA Member

1

---

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

EN
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 269

To authorize testimony and representation of former Senate employee in

Ward v. United States

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 21, 1996

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony and representation of former Senate

employee in Ward v. United States

Whereas, in the case of Carol Ward v. United States, Civil

Case No. 95–WY–810–WD, pending in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, testimony has

been requested from William T. Brack, a former chief of

staff to Senator Hank Brown;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their

official responsibilities;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evi-
2

SRES 269 ATS

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That William T. Brack is authorized to tes2 tify in the case of Carol Ward v. United States, Civil Case

3 No. 95–WY–810–WD (D. Colo.), except concerning mat4 ters for which a privilege should be asserted.

5 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized

6 to represent William T. Brack in connection with his testi7 mony in Carol Ward v. United States.

Æ