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

No. 16-30312

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 29, 2018

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Teal Lu-thy Miller, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Terrence Kellogg, Counsel, Law Office of Terrence Kellogg, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rohit Reddy appeals the 14-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for SNAP benefit fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reddy contends that the district court violated his right to due process by relying on the Guidelines’ instruction to make “a reasonable estimate” of the loss caused by his fraud without specifying the methodology it used to establish its estimate. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). We disagree. The record reflects that the court explained its methodology for determining loss, and that its methodology was reasonable. Even assuming that the court’s calculation had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, *see United States v. Mezas de Jesus,*217 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 2000) (clear and convincing standard applies “when a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction” (internal quotations omitted)), the record shows that it was. The court did not clearly err in its loss calculation, *see United States v. Garro,*517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008), or violate Reddy’s due process rights, *see United States v. Christensen,*732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish that his due process rights were violated, [a defendant] must show that materially false or unreliable information was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed by the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2014-B Owner Trust (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 and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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.
  Date:  June 23, 2017
 By:/s/ Mark KaczynskiMark KaczynskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of theservicing function)
 9
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 230

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the Berlin Airlift.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 230

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Allied effort to supply the people of Berlin, Germany, with food, fuel, and supplies in the face of the illegal Soviet blockade that divided the city was one of the

greatest military and humanitarian efforts in the history

of the world;

Whereas this 15 month Allied effort became known throughout the free world as the ‘‘Berlin Airlift’’ and ultimately
2

•HCON 230 EH

cost the lives of 78 Allied airmen, of whom 31 were

United States fliers;

Whereas this heroic humanitarian undertaking was universally regarded as an unambiguous statement of Western

resolve to thwart further Soviet expansion;

Whereas the Berlin Airlift was an unqualified success, both

as an instrument of diplomacy and as a life saving rescue

of the 2,000,000 inhabitants of West Berlin, with

2,326,205 tons of supplies delivered by 277,728 flights

over a 462-day period;

Whereas historians and citizens the world over view the success of this courageous action as pivotal to the ultimate

defeat of international tyranny, symbolized today by the

fall of the Berlin Wall; and

Whereas this inspiring act of resolve must be preserved in the

memory of future generations in a positive and dramatic

manner: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 celebration of the Berlin Airlift should include the presen4 tation of a suitable gift of representational art from the

5 citizens of the United States of America to the citizens

6 of the Federal Republic of Germany, commemorating the

7 fall of the ‘‘Berlin Wall’’ and the reunification of this great

8 city and, to this end, civic and corporate leaders across

9 the Nation are entrusted to fulfill this intent using private
3

•HCON 230 EH

1 subscription and volunteer effort with the encouragement

2 and support of the United States Congress.

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 11.1


              ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                             September 30,
                                                       -------------------------
                                                          1997          1996
                                                       -----------    ----------
Primary
     Weighted average common shares
       outstanding                                       31,065        30,862
     Weighted average common equivalent                             
       shares assuming conversion of stock                          
       options under the treasury stock method            1,172           770
                                                                    
                                                        -------       -------
Shares used in per share calculation                     32,237        31,632
                                                        -------       -------
                                                                    
Net income                                              $ 5,710       $ 7,765
                                                        =======       =======
                                                                    
Net income per share                                    $  0.18       $  0.25
                                                        =======       =======
                                                                    
                                                                    
Net  income  per share is  presented  under the  primary  basis as the effect of
dilution under the fully diluted basis is less than 3%.
P. 1



# OAR Box 1107 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 39 ) IV-C-8
Docket Number: 

# A-81-2 1

Printed 4/11/20083:03:46

PM Sheet 39of 90P. 2 

# A-8/-2 I
IV-C- 8

Hr . JosephC . Ledvin a Director , Environmenta l Activitie s Vist a Chemica l Company 1599 0 Nort hBarker' s Landin g Roa d Houston , Texa s 7722 4
Dea r Mr . Ledvina : Pleas e find enclose d th e draf t repor t o f ou r Decembe r 12 , 198 4 meetin g t o discus s incinerato r operation s unde r th e viny l chlorid e standard . Infor matio npresente d durin g th e meetin g o nincinerato r operation s andbypas s occurrence s a t Vista' s EDC/VC facilit y inWestlake , Louisian a hav e bee n summarize d i nth e meetin g report . Pleas e tak e thi s opportunit y t o revie w th e draf t repor t fo r an y inaccuracie s o r confidentia l busines s informatio n and contac t u s withi n2 t o 3 day s i f suc hinformatio ni s noted . You r promp t attentio nt o thi s reques t i s necessar y t o facilitat e decisio nmakin g o nthi s issue . We appreciat e you r assistanc e inou r dat a gatherin g efforts . I f yo u hav e any question s o r request s fo r revisions , pleas e cal l Ms . Kare nFidle r o f Radia na t (919 ) 541-910 0 o r m e a t (919 ) 541-5671 . Sincerely ,

Rober t E . Rosenstee l Sectio nChie f Chemical s an

dPetroleu

m Branc h Emissio nStandard s and Engineerin g Divisio n
cc : RonBryan , Vista/Westlak e Plan t OAQPS/ESED/SDB : WFDimmick , r m 1043 , NCM , 541-557 8 (Radian/KKFidler/ibunn/541-9100/01-23-85 )P. 3

^ r m . 1 -'

'.« '


# Pendin g Confidentia l

Th e followin g informatio ni s locate di n th e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio nStandard s andEngineerin g Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standards , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Thi s informatio n1 s confidential , pendin g fina l determinatio nb y th e Administrator , an d i s no t avail abl e fo r publi c inspection .

Enclosure , date d Januar y 7 , 1985 , fro

m K . K . Fidler , Radia nCorporation , t o L . B . Evans , EPA:CPB . Thi s 54-pag e tri p repor t (Decembe r 11 , 1984 ) contain s pendin g confidentia l information .
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 20, 2017

t0117 

# Order

Clerk January 20, 2017

154301 & (72)(73)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154301

COA: 326978

Calhoun CC: 2015

- 000188

- FH

JOSEPH ALAN WHARTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the June 30, 2016 judgment of t he Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court. The motion to suppress is DENIED.
Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Tel:  410 884 2000
Fax:  410 715 2380


WELLS FARGO



GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
200 West Street,
New York, NY 10282

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
for the Bank of America Plaza Loan Combination  (in such capacities, "Wells Fargo"), hereby
certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "reporting period"):


(a)

A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its performance
under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing
Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b)

To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the
reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.



March 19, 2015



/s/ Brian Smith
Brian Smith
Vice President

To:

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

Schedule A


List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series


Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among WELLS
FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO
BANK,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION,  as  General  Master  Servicer,  CWCAPITAL  ASSET
MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer,
NCB,  FSB,  as  NCB  Special  Servicer,  PENTALPHA  SURVEILLANCE  LLC,  as  Trust
Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,
Tax  Administrator  and  Custodian,  and  WILMINGTON  TRUST,  NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,  as  Trustee  relating  to  the  Series  WFRBS  2014-C22  Commercial
Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates  relating  to  the  Bank  of  America  Plaza  Loan
Combination,  a  pari  passu  portion  of  which  is  included  in  the  Series  GS  Mortgage
Securities  Trust  2014-GC26  Commercial  Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates
transaction.

To:  GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

Schedule B


Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
| (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (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 result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                 |

| Date: May 6, 2010 | /s/ Patrick J. Goodman                            |   |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Patrick J. Goodman                                |   |
|              | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|              | (principal financial officer)                     |   |

----
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36541 4 ROBERT E. JOHNSON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17
{1} Defendant Robert E. Johnson appeal s his convictions for two counts of 18 possession of a controlled substance and onecount of possession of marijuana, all 192 contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31- 23(A) (2011), [RP 89-92] pursuant to a 1 conditional plea [RP 81-87] that reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion 2 to suppress [RP 82]. In response to Defendant’s docketing statement, we proposed to 3 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO). After due 4 consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm. 5
{2} Defendant has not pers uaded us in his MIO that there was an error of law or fact 6 in our proposed disposition. Accordingly, for the reasons stat ed in our notice of 7 proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. 8 & Fabricating, Inc. , 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that 9 our appellate courts presume that the trial court is correct and, accordingly, the burden 10 is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); Hennessy v. 11 Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“[I]n summary 12 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly 13 point out errors in fact or law.”). 14
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

__________________________________ 16 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_________________________________ 19 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 203 _________________________________ 1 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 2
**EXHIBITITEM 31.2**

**SECTION302 CERTIFICATION**

I, BruceN. Warner certify that:

1.  I have read this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period (the “EvaluationDate”); and

c)              presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee or registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

6. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whetherthere were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.
| Date: November 10, 2006 | /s/ Bruce N. Warner           |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Bruce N. Warner               |   |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer & |   |
|                    | Principal Accounting Officer  |   |

 

----
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00506-CV TOBY PURDY, Appellant V. THE EXPO GROUP, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-09654

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. We
grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

240506F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

TOBY PURDY, Appellant

No. 05-24-00506-CV V.

THE EXPO GROUP, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-09654. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee THE EXPO GROUP, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from a ppellant TOBY PURDY.

Judgment entered May 22, 2024
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellate case name: Jose Juan Cardenas v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-11-01123-CR

Trial court case number: 1309968

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 11, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale______ 

 Acting for the Court

Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, Massengale, Brown, 

and Huddle participated in the consideration of this motion.

Date: May 13, 2013