alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, United States District Judge for the Western 2

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1728

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Russell D. Fairchild, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Filed: January 19, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and ALSOP, District

1

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Russell D. Fairchild pleaded guilty to a federal methamphetamine charge,

preserving for appeal his Fourth Amendment argument that the District Court erred

2

by denying his motion to suppress.
-2-

Having carefully reviewed Fairchild’s appeal, we conclude that his motion to

suppress was properly denied. Accordingly, Fairchild’s conviction is affirmed. See

8 Cir. R. 47B. th

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Giullian STEELE; Raul Aleman; Yury X. Bastos; Jarrod Denyer; Susan McMillan, et al Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant

No. 16-20779

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 14, 2018

Howard L. Steele, Jr., Shreedhar Rajni-kant Patel, Steele Law Group, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees

Lionel Mark Schooler, Esq., Richard Andrew Howell, Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellants challenge the district court’s determination of the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded on remand in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. *Steele v. Leasing Enters., Ltd.,*826 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2016). The appellee cross-appeals only as to the fee award for appellate work. We have considered this matter on the basis of the briefs, the record, the applicable law, *237and oral argument. Having done so, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. Thus, we AFFIRM.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 210

To commend the Cornhuskers of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln

for winning both the 1994 and 1995 National Collegiate Athletic Association Football Championships back-to-back.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 23, 1996

Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. KERREY) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commend the Cornhuskers of the University of Nebraska

at Lincoln for winning both the 1994 and 1995 National

Collegiate Athletic Association Football Championships

back-to-back.

Whereas Dr. Tom Osborne, the winningest coach in college

football, has led the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the last

five Big Eight titles, a second perfect season, and repeat

of the National Championship;

Whereas the Huskers have gone undefeated at 25–0 in the

last two seasons and 36–1 in the last three seasons, the

most victories ever in that timespan for any collegiate

team;

Whereas Tommie Frazier, the great Husker quarterback,

continued the unmatched Nebraska tradition by being
2

SRES 210 ATS

named Most Valuable Player in the last three Championship games and finished his brilliant career with a rushing high 199 yards in the 1996 Fiesta Bowl; and

Whereas the Huskers decisively won the Fiesta Bowl becoming the second football team ever in collegiate history to

earn a consensus #1 rank in the major polls for two consecutive years: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the

2 Cornhuskers of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln for

3 having won the 1995 National Collegiate Athletic Associa4 tion Football Championship.

Æ
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 123

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in

States.ciate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Unitedlate honorable William J. Brennan, former Assoducted in the Supreme Court Building for theconnection with memorial services to be conthe crypt beneath the rotunda of the Capitol in
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 123

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is author3 ized and directed to transfer to the custody of the Chief

4 Justice of the United States the catafalque which is pres5 ently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda of the Cap-
2

•HCON 123 EH

1 itol so that such catafalque may be used in the Supreme

2 Court Building in connection with services to be conducted

3 there for the late honorable William J. Brennan, former

4 Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

5 States.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Roger GIFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15749

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 17, 2017

Roger Gifford, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roger Gifford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gifford’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), because the first amended complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Gifford] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); *McHenry,*84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gifford’s first amended complaint without leave to amend because Gifford was provided with one opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); *Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a dis*1002trict court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,304
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,152
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,343
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        284,283
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,493
<DEPOSITS>                                     215,698
<SHORT-TERM>                                    39,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,185
<LONG-TERM>                                     29,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 326,493
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,409
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  489
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   195
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,093
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,843
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,719
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,374
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (378)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,941
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,941
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,411
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .035
<LOANS-NON>                                        370
<LOANS-PAST>                                       140
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   307
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,100
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,679
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       32
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,887
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,887
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,624


</TABLE>
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50195

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ALVIN RAY MATHIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CR-148-1)

March 10, 1998

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Under a written plea agreement, Alvin Ray Mathis, Jr.

pleaded guilty to distributing in excess of 50 grams of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The district court

imposed a 115-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a fiveyear term of supervised release. In calculating the sentence, the
2 See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir.

1996).

2

district court reduced Mathis’s offense level by two points on the

basis of his acceptance of responsibility. On appeal, Mathis

contends that the government breached the plea agreement by failing

to adhere to its promise that it would recommend to the sentencing

court that he receive a three-point reduction. After a de novo

review 2 of both the terms of the agreement and the evidence placed

before the district court, we conclude that the government did not

breach its promise. We affirm.

Although the plea agreement stated that the government would

recommend a three-point reduction, the presentence report

recommended that Mathis receive merely a two-point reduction

because he did not plead guilty until the day of trial. At the

sentencing hearing, Mathis objected to this recommendation. When

the district court inquired as to the government’s response to

Mathis’s objection, the prosecuting attorney stated that the

government was “bound by the plea agreement,” and that it “did not

oppose a three-level downward adjustment.” The probation officer

in attendance then stated that case law supported his

recommendation that Mathis was entitled only to a two-point

reduction. The prosecuting attorney did not respond to this

statement. In the end, the district court concluded that Mathis

was only entitled to a two-point reduction. 

Though Mathis undoubtedly preferred the prosecuting attorney
3 United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 455 (1985); United

States v. Cates, 952 F.2d 149, 153 (5th Cir. 1992).

3

to argue zealously for a three-point reduction, binding precedent

makes it clear to us that unless the explicit language of the plea

agreement so requires, the government need not endorse the terms of

its plea agreements enthusiastically.3 It cannot be denied that

the government placed its recommendation for a three-point

reduction squarely before the court. The government adhered to the

terms of the plea agreement.

AFFIRMED.
#### Donald GORDON, a/k/a Michael Coke, a/k/a Peter Gordon, a/k/a Timothy Knox, a/k/a Donald Wilson, a/k/a Donald Gordan, a/k/a Tim Knox, a/k/a Ronald Tait, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1750

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 30, 2017

Decided: November 9, 2017

Donald Gordon, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth Fitzgerald-Sambou, Bernard Arthur Joseph, UNITED STATES DEPART*311MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Gordon, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly .reviewed the record, including the transcript of Gordon’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, *INS v. Elias-*Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. *See In re Gordon*(B.I.A. May 31, 2017). We deny Gordon’s motion to appoint counsel and 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*
EXHIBIT 32.1 / 32.2  CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of El Palenque Vivero, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Francisco Mendez, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   /s/ Francisco
Mendez____________________ Name: Francisco
Mendez Title: Chief
Executive and Financial Officer   Date: December
23, 2009
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Party City Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company    for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ GREGG A. MELNICK       Gregg A. Melnick *Chief Financial Officer*Dated: February 10, 2005     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.
Exhibit 33.3


[LOGO] MIDLANDLOANSERVICES

March 1, 2007

Mr. Mario Fegan
IMPAC Funding Corporation
1401 Dove St
Newport Beach, CA 92660

                           IMPAC Secured Assets Corp.
                  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
                                  Series 2006-5
                               Servicing Agreement


                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), it is hereby certified to the Depositor thereunder that on behalf
of Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"), (i) a review of the Servicer's
activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; and ((ii)
to the best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such
failure known to the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are
set forth below; and (iii) the Servicer has not received any notice regarding
qualification, or challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the
Agreement from the IRS or any other governmental agency or body.


                            MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, INC.

                            /s/ Steven W. Smith                  3/1/07
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            Steven W. Smith                      Date
                            Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President


      A member of The PNC Financial Services Group
      10851 Mastin  P.O. Box 25965  Shawnee Mission  Kansas  66225-5965
      www.midlandls.com  913 253 9000 T  913 253 9001 F
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Growth Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Karl Brenza, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



Date: October 3, 2011



/s/ Karl Brenza

Karl Brenza

President

(Principal Executive Officer)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Growth Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



Date: October 3, 2011



/s/ Joseph Rozelle

Joseph Rozelle

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Order entered December 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00227-CR

ALEXANDER MATTHEW GOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-00588-H

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion asking us reconsider setting the above case for oral 

argument. The case had been set for submission without oral argument. Appellant’s motion is 

GRANTED. The case will be reset in due course of the Court’s docket.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2004249EN.01000101.xml

| 8.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 October 2004

(2004/C 249/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2301 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4423 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69055 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0463 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5535 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,31 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2855 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,576 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,379 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,23 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6652 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4291 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3451 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 41 055 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,97 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,055 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 849 700 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6917 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5448 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5914 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8204 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0776 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 414,86 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1183 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2301

JPY

Japanese yen

136,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4423

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69055

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0463

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5535

ISK

Iceland króna

87,31

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2855

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,576

CZK

Czech koruna

31,379

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,23

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6652

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4291

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3451

ROL

Romanian leu

41 055

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,97

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,055

TRL

Turkish lira

1 849 700

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6917

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5448

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5914

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8204

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0776

KRW

South Korean won

1 414,86

ZAR

South African rand

8,1183

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---