alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997

<CASH>                                           7,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,857
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,045
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           994
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,857
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (6,848)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,868)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.000
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN MCMILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00269-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin McMiller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin McMiller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the 

First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After 

reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying McMiller’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) 

(per curiam) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 191 

(4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]n light of this case’s relative simplicity, where the district court was 

aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive 

reason for adhering to what was already a below-Guidelines sentence, its explanation for 

denying [the] motion for compassionate release was adequate.” (cleaned up)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McMiller, No. 3:17-cr00269-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023). Because it fails to comply with 4th Cir. R. 

28(b), McMiller’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief is denied. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solelyfor the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.

 

November 20, 2007

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               that this quarterly report on Form10-QSB/A, Amendment No. 1 for the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

b.              that information contained in thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A, Amendment 1 for the period ended March 31,2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

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

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie CLIFTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10489

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 12, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 15, 2018

Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Todd M. Borden, FPDCA— Federal Public Defenders Office (San Francisco), San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Willie Clifton (“Clifton”) appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On *439appeal, Clifton argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1

Officer Yenzon properly searched Clifton incident to his arrest. An arrest occurs when, considering the “totality of the circumstances,” a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave after brief questioning. *Washington v. Lambert,*98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 1996); *see United States v. Guzman-Padilla,*573 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2009). After learning that Clifton’s license was suspended, Officer Venzon ordered Clifton out of the car and handcuffed him almost immediately, explaining that he was under arrest. Once handcuffed, a reasonable person in Clifton’s circumstances would have believed “indefinite custodial detention [was] inevitable.” *Guzman-Padilla,*573 F.3d at 884 (citing *Kraus v. Pierce Cty.,*793 F.2d 1105, 1109 (9th Cir. 1986)). The search that followed was therefore lawful. *See United States v. Edwards,*415 U.S. 800, 802, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974).

That is so even if Clifton was not arrested until after the search. A search incident to arrest need not precede the arrest; rather, the critical inquiry “is whether the search is ‘roughly contemporaneous with the arrest.’ ” *United States v. Smith,*389 F.3d 944, 951 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting *United States v. McLaughlin,*170 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 1999)). Here, the arrest and search were not “so separated in time or by intervening acts that the latter cannot be said to have been incident to the former.” *Id.*(quoting *McLaughlin,*170 F.3d at 893). Thus, the motion to suppress was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, but the factual findings underlying the district court’s decision are reviewed for clear error. *United States*v. *McTiernan,*695 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing *United States v. Casares,*533 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008)).
H. Con. Res. 21 Agreed to February 13, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Thursday, February 13, 1997, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m.

on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, or until noon on the second day

after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2

of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when

the Senate adjourns or recesses at the close of business on

Thursday, February 13, 1997, pursuant to a motion made by the

Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent

resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on Monday, February 24, 1997, or such time on that day as may be

specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion

to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent

resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,
H. Con. Res. 21—2

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,587
<SECURITIES>                                     2,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                       503
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,892
<PP&E>                                          11,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,683
<SALES>                                         30,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,651
<CGS>                                            1,986
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                       24,175
<SECURITIES>                                                 10,954
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 2,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                     205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             38,263
<PP&E>                                                        2,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               41,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         2,929
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                        130
<OTHER-SE>                                                   69,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 41,775
<SALES>                                                       4,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              4,552
<CGS>                                                           430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (9,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (31)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (9,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (9,753)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.76)



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

d0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

138749(63)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138749 COA: 283799 Jackson CC: 06-004643-FH; 06-004752-FH; 06-004760-FH TODD ALAN BINSCHUS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 18, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., would grant the motion for reconsideration.
No. 11-10288.

#### Wilson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                                   FORM 8-K

                            CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT
                         TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 15, 2002
                                                         --------------


                           URANIUM POWER CORPORATION
                           ------------------------
            (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)


                                   Colorado
                                   ---------
                (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

              0-27659                                        None
              -------                                     ----------
     (Commission file number)                  (IRS employer identification no.)

        206-475 Howe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada VC 2B3
      -------------------------------------------------------------------
         (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)


                                (604) 685-8355
                                --------------
             (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)


                                Not Applicable
                                --------------
         (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

                               Page 1 of 3 Pages


<PAGE>

ITEM 5.

        A 10QSB filing was erroneously submitted earlier today on behalf of
Uranium Power Corporation. It includes information about a company named Uranium
Resources, Inc. which is unrelated to Uranium Power Corporation. This filing was
NOT made on behalf of Uranium Power Corporation, nor does it include any
information pertaining to the Company.

        A separate letter is being sent to the SEC requesting that the filing be
deleted from the SEC database. Since such requests require a time-consuming
process at the SEC we are submitting this filing to minimize confusion to
shareholders and the investing public.

                               Page 2 of 3 Pages
<PAGE>


                                  SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                           By:  /s/ Thornton J. Donaldson
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Thornton J. Donaldson
                                               President and Director

Dated: May 15, 2002

                               Page 3 of 3 Pages
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06668]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (Sec. Sec.  
1.301 to 1.400), revised as of April 1, 2021, in Sec.  1.358-6, revise 
paragraph (f)(1) and revise the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.358-6   Stock basis in certain triangular reorganizations.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph 
(f), this section applies to triangular reorganizations occurring on or 
after December 23, 1994.
* * * * *
    (3) Triangular G reorganization and special rule for triangular 
reorganizations involving members of a consolidated group. Paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section shall apply to triangular reorganizations 
occurring on or after September 17, 2008. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-06668 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark FAAITA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10217

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed February 15, 2018

Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Cynthia Ann Kagiwada, Kaneohe, HI, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-appellant Mark Faaita appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although Faaita (concedes his appeal is untimely under Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this rule is not jurisdictional, *see United States v. Navarro,*800 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2015), and the government does not challenge the appeal’s timeliness. Accordingly, we may address it.

*438The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Faaita’s motion to dismiss the 2014 indictment, even though it dismissed the prior 2011 indictment with prejudice.- In dismissing the 2011 indictment, the district court did not make any finding that the government acted in bad faith, and such a finding would not have been supported by evidence in the record. While the district court may dismiss an indictment with prejudice when it *expressly*determines that the government is operating in bad faith, see *United States v. Hayden,*860 F.2d 1483, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1988), the district court made no such express determination here, and we decline to infer that the district court implicitly found bad faith, given the lack of support for such a determination in the record. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Faaita’s argument that the government’s 2014 indictment was a continuation of bad faith conduct. Moreover, the dismissal of the 2011 indictment with prejudice would not preclude the government from seeking a new indictment, *see United States v. Castiglione,*876 F.2d 73, 76 (9th Cir. 1988), and the 2014 indictment charges different crimes and transactions than were included in the 2011 indictment.1

AFFIRMED

**

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

1

, We deny Faaita's motion to strike portions of the Government’s supplemental excerpts of record.