alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Wenseslado VEGA-VASQUEZ, also known as Tony Carrasco, also known as Roberto Martinez, also known as Jose Alfredo Martinez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50305 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

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

Jose Wenseslado Vega-Vasquez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Wenseslado Vega-Vas*271quez 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). Vega-Vasquez 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*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *271published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark McLeary, Chief Executive Officer of Del
Toro Silver Corp. (the Company) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
      year ended October 31, 2010 (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
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                 



|Dated: February 15, 2011 | By: /s/ Mark McLeary                                  
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Mark McLeary                                          
|                         | President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief
      Executive
|                         | Officer                                               
|                         | (Principal Executive Officer)                         





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Del Toro Silver
Corp. and will be retained by Del Toro Silver Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
211(b) Toxicology Research Group Gasoline TBA VC:
Immunotoxicity

Reviewer Checklist

Comments Action/Response Page

EPA

No comments p. 1264

Peer Reviewer

– Schlesinger

No comments Noted.

Peer Reviewer

– Goldsworthy This study evaluated the potential of 4 weeks of exposure to G

- TBA to affect the humoral immune component of the immune system. This study was properly conducted and scientifically sound. Data

demonstrated that G

- TBA did not effect terminal body weights or spleen and thymus weights. G

- TBA did not alter the spleen IgM antibody

- forming cell response to sheep erythrocytes. The positive control CPS demonstrated the anticipated results, verifying the proper assay conditions. The conclusions that, under

the ex perimental conditions of this study, G

- TBA did not adversely affect the functional ability of the humoral immune component of the immune system accurately reflect the study results. Noted.

211(b) Research Group Reviewer

No comments Noted.

211(b) Research Group QA/QC Reviewer



### 1. Satellite Report, Immunological Evaluation: GLP Compliance Statement needs to include the appropriate GLP

reference and the statement about the positive control article stability, identity, purity, uniformity and concentration not being performed or being taken from the certificate of analysis (as was previously indicated). Completed. Ok



### 2. Satellite Report, Immunological Evaluation: Page 3 of 24, This is the Immunotox QA Statement, not the HLS QA Statement as it in dicates on the bottom of the page. Completed. Ok



### 3. Satellite Report, Immunological

Evaluation: Somewhere in the text it

should be indicated that the individual animal data are rounded and that original (unrounded) data were used for mean and

standard error calculations. Completed on page 13

. Ok
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006762
<NAME> ARCA CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          42,147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,581
<PP&E>                                       3,585,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                 228,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,720,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          217,501
<BONDS>                                      3,556,829
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           239
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,379)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,720,190
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               395,269
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             149,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is beingsubmitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose ofcomplying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

 

May10, 2005

 

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

 

a.               that thisperiodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 

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

 

----
# L_2013167EN.01S00301.xml

| 19.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 167/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 167/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Trent B. Troyer, the 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 to my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Trent B. Troyer
-------------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004
Exhibit
32.1




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 Everton Capital Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Jonathan Woo,
Chief Executive Officer and 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, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




th




/s/ Jonathan WooJonathan
      WooChief
      Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer
#### James Edward MCLEAN, Jr., a/k/a James E. McLean, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI ESTILL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7216

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 26, 2018

Decided: February 12, 2018

James Edward McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding . precedent in this circuit.

*147PER CURIAM:

James Edward McLean, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McLean v. Warden,*No. 9:16-cv-02956-MGL, 2017 WL 8783128 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Wayne WIESKAMP Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1463

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 6, 2018

Filed: February 15, 2018

- Melisa K. Zaehringer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gregory Wayne Wieskamp, Pro Se

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

. PER CURIAM.

Gregory Wieskamp directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to ammunition possession offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him within the Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court inadequately informed Wies-*371kamp of his right to persist in a plea of not guilty, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B), and abused its discretion by sentencing Wieskamp to a greater prison term than his codefendants received.

Wieskamp did not object to the purported Rule 11 error below, and after careful review, we conclude that no plain error occurred. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error standard); United States v. Gillen, 449 F.3d 898, 903-04 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that failure to give Rule 11 warning verbatim was harmless where plea agreement contained warning and defendant confirmed that he understood agreement). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as it specifically discussed several sentencing factors, and considered counsel’s argument that Wieskamp should not receive a harsher sentence than two of his codefendants. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review; where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing defendant’s proffered information in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).

Having independently reviewed the record under 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 affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District- Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
No. 11-7020.

#### Al-Madhwani *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Richard STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55633

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Charles Thomas Marshall, Charles T. Marshall, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Clear Recon Corporation

Howard D. Hall, Attorney, Hall Hugue-nin LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Markus D. Self, Green & Hall, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

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). Stanley’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Stanley appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Stanley fails to address how the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action for failure to comply with the local rules. As a result, Stanley has waived his challenge to the dismissal order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“On appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

Hicks, Austin@ARB

From: Sutkus, Carol@ARB

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:49 AM

To: Lewis, Monica@ARB; Hicks, Austin@ARB

Subject: FW: SIP Submittal for Rule 222

Attachments: sipcklst.doc; evalform.doc; Rule 222 Board Package.pdf; Board Minutes.pdf; Rule222

_Draft_Staff_rpt.doc; Public Notice.pdf

From: dwhitney_apcd@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:dwhitney_apcd@co.slo.ca.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:51 PM 

To: Sutkus, Carol@ARB 

Subject: SIP Submittal for Rule 222 

Hello Carol, 

Attached please find the APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form, SIP Completeness Checklist, and the supporting 

documentation. The District requests that the California Air Resources Board submit District Rule 222, Federal Emission 

Statement, as adopted on May 28, 2014 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Inclusion in the California State 

Implementation Plan. 

No public comments were received. 

Let me know if you have any questions 

 

David Whitney 

Engineer 

San Luis Obispo County APCD 

3433 Roberto Court 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

805-781-5912

[Scanned @co.slo.ca.us]
#### Jefferson BUNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 5, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 07, 2017

Dan M. Winder, Esquire, Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Hans Harris Chen, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Buning appeals the dismissal of his action for failure to timely effect service of process, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), (m). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action, because Buning failed to timely serve the United States attorney for the District of Nevada. *See*Fed. R. of Civ. P. 4(i)(l)(A)(i), (m). Buning did not establish good cause or excusable neglect for his failure to perfect service of process as required. *See Lemoge v. United States,*587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).

Buning argues either that (1) he was excused for service of process under Rule 4 because 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b) controlled or, even if it did not, (2) he established good cause for failing to comply with Rule 4, because § 336.9(b) created ambiguity with regard to service of process. Neither argument is persuasive.

First, to the extent that Buning has not waived these arguments, because he failed to provide “any analysis to assist the court in evaluating [his] legal challenge,” *see Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2003), there is no conflict between Rule 4 and 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b). Section 336.9(b) merely informs the applicant which agencies must be served under Rule 4(i)(l)(C). Second, even if there were an ambiguity, Buning was aware of the requirements of Rule 4 when he moved under Rule 4(m) for additional time to serve the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. *See Whale v. United States,*792 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We know of no cases in which counsel’s failure to read Rule 4 and counsel’s resulting ‘assumption’ that mail service was valid were held to constitute ‘good cause’ or ‘justifiable excuse.’ ”). Moreover, Buning still failed to effect service in the *640additional time granted by the district court. Accordingly, we cannot find good cause or excusable neglect.1

AFFIRMED.

***

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

1

. Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 4(m), we need not address Buning’s additional arguments on appeal.