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

No. 16-11568 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 30, 2018

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

Michael David Stepich, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael David Stepich appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He argues on appeal that the district court committed a legal error by denying him a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 without making explicit findings defining the average participant in the criminal activity and comparing Stepich to that average participant as well as to the other participants in the criminal activity. He also contends that the district court legally erred by basing its denial of the mitigating role reduction solely on the nature and extent of his participation in the commission of the criminal activity.

We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 202-03 (5th Cir. 2005). Although the parties disagree as to whether Stepich has preserved the specific challenge he raises on appeal, we need not resolve that dispute because the district court’s judgment may be affirmed whether or not the error was preserved. *See United States v. McLauling,*753 F.3d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 2014).

Our examination of the record shows that the district court was presented with, and considered, all of the relevant factors required to determine whether Stepich qualified for a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2. The record also does not support Stepich’s contention that the district court or probation officer treated any of the factors as determinative. Accordingly, the district court did not commit any legal error in making the § 3B1.2 determination. Moreover, Stepich does not specifically challenge on appeal the district court’s factual determination underlying its denial of a mitigating role adjustment. *See United States v. Scroggins,*599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10707 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Benny Lavern Collins,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CV

- 3328 USDC No. 3:92

- CR

- 141

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Benny Lavern Collins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 24, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 21-10707 Document: 00516252266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2022No. 21

- 10707

2 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Collins 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 motio n for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-10707 Document: 00516252266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1182 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32003R1182

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1182/2003 of 2 July 2003 correcting Regulation (EC) No 315/2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential **

*
Official Journal L 165 , 03/07/2003 P. 0019 - 0019 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1182/2003

of 2 July 2003

correcting Regulation (EC) No 315/2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Articles 10 and 15 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) There is an error in Commission Regulation (EC) No 315/2003(3). In order to prevent incorrect interpretation and ensure correct application of the measures provided for in that Regulation, the error should be rectified.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 315/2003 should be corrected accordingly.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 315/2003 is hereby corrected as follows:

1. the following point is added to Article 1:

"5. The Annex is amended in accordance with the Annex hereto.";

2. in the Annex, the following is inserted after "ANNEX":

"Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are replaced by the following:".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 24 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 46, 20.2.2003, p. 9.
<PAGE>



         Exhibit 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of International
Microcomputer Software, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that (i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended September 30,
2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Quarterly Report"), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: November 13, 2003

By: /s/ Martin Wade, III
Martin Wade, III
Director & Chief Executive Officer
(logo) CWCapital 

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

 

 

 

JPMBB 2014-C23  

 

 

                

In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB andwith the requirements detailed in §11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)          a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof  (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B)           to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD  20814 www.cwcapital.com
(logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

 

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

            

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2014 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association  as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisor relating to the Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, COMM 2014-UBS5 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates  **(COMM 2014-UBS5)**

 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.    All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.    A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of September 23, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by:         /s/ Adam Singer                                                   Date:  March 5, 2015

       Adam Singer, Managing Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         210,816                 210,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,649                   8,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                       358                     358
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,515                 227,515
<PP&E>                                          89,547                  89,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,139                  31,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,095                 326,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,624                  32,624
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          145,527                 145,527
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       184,483                 184,483
<OTHER-SE>                                   (194,780)               (194,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   326,095                 326,095
<SALES>                                         19,662                  36,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,662                  36,146
<CGS>                                           20,204                  37,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,548                  64,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,291                   6,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    76                     112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,025                   8,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,479)                (44,748)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,479)                (44,748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   3,042
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,479)                (41,706)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.49)                  (2.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.49)                  (2.92)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

TOMA Integrity, Inc., and John Dial, 

Appellants

No. 06-19-00005-CV v.

Windermere Oaks Water Supply 

Corporation, Appellee

Appeal from the 33rd District Court of 

Burnet County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 47531). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants, TOMA Integrity, Inc., and John Dial, pay all costs of 

this appeal.

RENDERED JUNE 21, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Project No.: 0317.01.005.510 Page 1 of 8

Project Name: DMR2011 CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 12/30/13 Time: 2:19 am

pm

Company Name: Alpena Vision Resources - Spartan Mine ERG Staff Name: Julia Kolberg

Contact Name: Anne Voshel Contact Phone Number: (773) 857-7334

General Subject: 2011 DMR Mercury Discharges

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On December 16, 2013 I called to follow up on an electronic FOIA request that had been sent to the EPA. I left 

a message indicating that I was looking for an update on the status of the request.

On December 30, 2013 I called Anne Voshel (773-857-7334) directly at the Alpena facility. She indicated that 

she would pull the DMR reports from off-site storage and get back to me when the information was available.

On December 31, 2013 at 9:59am Anne Voshel returned my call. She indicated that mercury levels were 

actually measured nanograms per liter, instead of micrograms per liter. Form did not have nanograms listed, so 

it was reported in error. Alpena sent a letter to the IEPA on February 27, 2013 that corrected this data. Anne 

indicated that she would follow up with an e-mail containing the letter and additional facility DMR information.

Please see attached email correspondence for additional information on the facility.
"Anne Voshel" abvoshel@avacononline.com

12/31/2013 10:01:34 AM

Kolberg, Julia

Spartan Mine Mercury Reading for DMRS 2011 & 2012

Anne B. Voshel

ALPENA VISION RESOURCES

636 W. Wellington

Chicago, Illinois 60657

W: 773.857.7334

C: 312.927.1171

E1: abvoshel@avacononline.com

"VonDeBur, Elizabeth" Elizabeth.VonDeBur@Illinois.gov

1/3/2014 4:05:36 PM

Kolberg, Julia

Illinois EPA FOIA Response.doc

January 3, 2014

ERG

Attn: Ms. Julia Kolberg

14555 Avion Parkway

Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151 

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request - 80814

Dear Ms. Kolberg: 

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.) 

request dated December 9, 2013 and received by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

(Illinois EPA) on December 9, 2013.

The information responsive to your request is attached.

Requested Information

W1578990016 – Old Ben Coal, PO BOX 1, Sparta 

Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerely, 

Thomas J. Reuter

FOIA Officer (Acting)

Illinois EPA

217.558.5101

www.epa.state.il.us/foia

Your attachment has been removed and stored for download

W1578990016 Old Ben.zip download

The password to download this file is erg.

This file will be kept for 30 days.
#### Chris Cyril COWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAC METRO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56109

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Chris Cyril Cowart, Pro Se

Calvin House, Attorney, Gutierrez, Pre-ciado & House, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chris Cyril Cowart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his employment action alleging federal and state claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. *Ford v. City of Yakima,*706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s fraudulent concealment of documents claim because Cowart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant intended to conceal documents for the purpose of denying worker’s compensation. *See*Cal. Ins. Code § 1871.4(a)(1) (unlawful to make any knowingly false or fraudulent material statement or material representation for the purpose of obtaining or denying worker’s compensation).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s retaliation claim because Cowart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a causal link existed between any protected activity and defendant’s adverse actions. *See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,*36 Cal.4th 1028, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123, 1130 (2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cowart’s harassment claim under FEHA because Cowart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the conduct was severe or sufficiently pervasive enough to alter the conditions of his employment. *See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc.,*21 Cal.4th 121, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846, 851-52 (1999) (setting forth requirements of harassment claim under FEHA).

We do not consider Cowart’s contentions regarding the jury instructions and special verdict form because Cowart failed to raise these issues before the district court. *See Bird v. Lewis & Clark Coll.,*303 F.3d 1015, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to object to jury instructions waives issue on appeal); *Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,*259 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to challenge jury verdict form waives issue on appeal).

*506We do not consider Cowart s contentions regarding, disability discrimination under FEHA because Cowart failed to allege this claim in his operative complaint. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (court does not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal).

Cowart’s requests set forth in the opening and reply briefs are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 6649** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
GREGORY SCOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of North Carolina , at Greenville

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:97

- cr - 00133

- H

- 5 )

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un pu blished per curiam opinion

.

Gregory Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CU RIAM:
Gregory Scott appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated b y the district court. United States v. Gregory , No 5:97

- cr - 00133

- H

- 5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2009) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. COREY SIDBERRY, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 165 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**Exhibit****32.1**
 
 **Certification** **Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 The
undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of International Microcomputer
Software, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended March 31, 2005, as filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to
which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 **Date:
May 16, 2005**
 
 **By:  
/s/ Martin Wade, III**
 Martin
Wade, III
 Director
& Chief
Executive Officer
 
  -36-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donna DEMPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10783 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 9, 2018)

Linda Julin McNamara, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Suzanne C. Nebesky, Thomas Nelson Palermo, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Kristen A. Fiore, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donna Demps, Pro Se

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Serbo Simeoni, appointed counsel for Donna Demps in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Demps’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.