alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LUIS ARMANDO JIMENEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50054 

D.C. No. 3:20-cr-03874-BAS-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Armando Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 120-month sentence and 4 years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 5 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez contends that the district court erred by not addressing his 

mitigating arguments. We need not resolve whether Jimenez preserved this claim 

because we would affirm under either de novo or plain error review. See United 

States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standards of 

review for preserved and unpreserved clams of procedural error). The record 

demonstrates that the district court listened to Jimenez’s arguments because it 

made the recommendations for participation in a residential reentry center and the 

residential drug abuse program that Jimenez requested. The court explained that it 

would not vary further below the Guidelines range in light of Jimenez’s significant 

criminal history. This explanation allows for meaningful appellate review and 

communicates that the parties’ arguments were heard and a reasoned decision was 

made. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

The district court was not required to repeat Jimenez’s mitigating arguments just to 

show it had considered them. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 

(9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
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 ofPaperFree Medical Solutions, Inc., (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Michael
Gelmon, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:
 1. The
Report complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) 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
Registrant.
   By: /s/ Michael
Gelmon
 Michael Gelmon,Chief
 Date: July 21, 2008
  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.
In the INTEREST OF D.C.A.

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. D.C.A., Appellant.

WD 81557

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 26, 2019

Mary Barnard, Fulton, Missouri, Attorney for Respondent.

Craig A. Johnston, Assistant State Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

By and through counsel, D.C.A. appeals from the order of adjudication of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, Family Court Division, finding that the Juvenile Officer proved beyond a reasonable doubt that D.C.A. committed acts that would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The adjudication order is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Stephen Drew CROUCH and Robbin Lea Everett, Respondents, v. Eric R. ARNER, Gail Lannette Arner and Mark Dale Crouch, Appellants.

WD 81111

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: February 26, 2019

Jeffery A. Sutton, Basehor, KS for appellants.

Judson B. Poppen and Richard L. Schnake, Springfield, MO for respondents.

Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Mark D. Pfeiffer and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Respondents Stephen Crouch and Robbin Everett, and Appellants Gail Arner and Mark Crouch, are siblings. The four siblings are all beneficiaries of a trust created by their deceased mother. Appellant Eric Arner, Gail Arner's husband, was one of the trustees of the trust. Respondents filed this lawsuit against the Appellants, alleging that Eric Arner had improperly executed a deed which transferred real property out of the trust. Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, the court entered its judgment declaring the deed to be null and void. The court also found that, in executing the deed, Eric Arner had violated his fiduciary duties as a trustee of the trust. The court ordered Eric Arner to pay $16,825.81 of Respondents' costs and attorney's fees, and removed him as a trustee of the trust. The Appellants appeal, arguing that the judgment is contrary to the evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-11-00304-CV

Bradley L. CROFT,

Appellant

v.

AMS SA MANAGEMENT, LLC, dba Association Management Services,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-15857

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

appeal are assessed against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED September 9, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
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 Chardan Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KT for the year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Congyan Xue, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d)); and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Chardan Acquisition Corp.
  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.
   Chardan Acquisition Corp.Date: September 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Congyan XueCongyan XueChief Executive Officer and Director
# u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOB

# E

# cEI 

# vED FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## JUN 0 1 2015 

## HEARING DOCKET 

# cJO 

# vs-

**L3~\** Civil Penalty Case No. 2011S0700457 REQUEST FORA HEARING Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 13 .16(g)(2)(ii) and (h), Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., the Respondent in the above-captioned case, by and through the undersigned counsel, requests a hearing.
Jercy . Cox, Esq



### n~v}allows Rd., Suite 401



### ·~ Vienna, VA 22180 (email)

**jcox(~ypotQrn_acstra_tegyassociates.com** (tel) 703-757-5866 Counsel for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.


### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 28, 2015, the undersigned sent by electronic mail and by air courier one copy ofthe Request for a Hearing to each ofthe persons listed below. William Vines, Esq. Office ofRegional Counsel U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Southern Region 1701 Columbia Ave. College Park, GA 30337 Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Federal Aviation Administration Wilbur Wright Bldg., Suite 2W1000 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591
Joseph A. ASTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

ED 106521

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: June 18, 2019

FOR APPELLANT; Alexandria A. Shah, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Julia E. Rives, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Joseph A. Asta ("Movant") entered a guilty plea to one count of felony burglary, one count of felony receiving stolen property, and twelve counts of felony unlawful possession of a firearm. Movant filed an amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 24.035 claiming his plea attorneys promised he would be eligible for and sentenced to the St. Louis City drug court program. The motion court considered and denied the amended motion. We affirm the denial because the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment under 84.16(b).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
, Appellant,

v.

RENAISSANCE CHARTER SCHOOL, INC.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2539

[ September 27, 2018 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings ; L.T. DOAH Case No s

. 16

- 5126 and 16

- 5157RX

.

Sean Fahey, JulieAnn Rico and A. Denise Sagerholm of The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, Office of General Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Stephanie Alex ander and Edward J. Pozzuoli of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNER

, JJ., and M IRMAN
, L AWRENCE , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carroll ShelbyInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the periodending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carroll Shelby, ChiefExecutive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 17, 2004 | /s/   CARROLL SHELBY |                                                 |
|--------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|               |                           | Carroll Shelby, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|                    |                                |                                                      |  |

 

----
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lena Michelle EBERHARDT, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106708

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: May 14, 2019

Justin A. Moody, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Katharine P. Curry, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lena Michelle Eberhardt appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of fraudulently attempting to obtain a controlled substance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).1

1

Mo. R. Crim. P. 2018.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00164-CR

Elifonso Lopez

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2015-DCR-606-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 21, 2016
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 0036 4

- CR

Ex parte Mohammad Mahmood

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 21

- 058 6

- K368 , THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Mohammad Mahmood has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The

motion is signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id

.

____________ _____________________________ _ Cha ri L . Kelly , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 17, 2022

D o Not Publish
EXHIBIT 99.1

            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                    OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of
the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Riverbend Telecom, Inc.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Riverbend Telecom, Inc. and will be retained by
Riverbend Telecom, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Leon Nowalsky
---------------------------
Leon Nowalsky
President and Principal Executive Officer
Date:  May 21, 2003


/s/ Leon Nowalsky
---------------------------
Leon Nowalsky
Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  May 21, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic reportcontaining the issuer’s financial statements fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodicreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.*

 
|   | *By:*                                 | */s/  Keith C. Robbins* |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                                  |
|   | *President,  Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                                  |
|   | *Date:*                               | *August  10, 2004*      |   |
|        |                                       |                         |        |  |

 

1

----
exhibit4-1.htm


    EXHIBIT
4.1

    


    PEOPLES BANCORP
INC.

    138
Putnam Street

    Marietta,
OH  45750

    (740)
373-3155

    


    


    


    


    


    


    March 1,
2010

    


    


    Securities
and Exchange Commission

    100 F
Street, N.E.

    Washington,
D.C.  20549

    


    


    RE:  Peoples
Bancorp Inc. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009

    


    


    Ladies
and Gentlemen:

    


    Peoples
Bancorp Inc., an Ohio corporation, is today filing its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”), as executed
on March 1, 2010.

    


    Pursuant
to the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Peoples Bancorp
Inc. hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments
and agreements defining (i) the rights of holders of Peoples Bancorp Inc.’s
long-term debt or (ii) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of one of its
consolidated subsidiaries, not being filed or incorporated by reference as an
exhibit to the Form 10-K.  Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of
the total assets of Peoples Bancorp Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    Peoples
Bancorp Inc.

    


    /s/
EDWARD G. SLOANE

    Edward G.
Sloane

    Executive
Vice President,

    Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
Order filed May 22, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00145-CV

____________

TEXAS G&S INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A TEXAS MONEY EXCHANGE, 

Appellant

V.

CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1023611

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due May 12, 2014. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with the clerk of this court on or before June 6, 

2014, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Allen R. Hartman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hartman Short Term Income Properties XX, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 ("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.





Date:  May 30, 2013  /s/ Allen R. HartmanAllen R. HartmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

*I certify that this periodic report containing the issuer’sfinancial statements fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andthat information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.*
|   |   | *By:*            | */s/ Keith C. Robbins*              |   |
|--------|--------|------------------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |             |                                |   |
|   |   |             | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |             |                                |   |
|   | Date:  | November 7, 2007 |                                |   |   |   |
|   |   |             |                                |   |
|        |        |                  |                                     |        |  |  |

 

----
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marko WHITLOCK, Appellant.

No. ED 106650

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 11, 2019

Mary S. Choi, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton, III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Marko Whitlock appeals the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of third-degree domestic assault, Section 565.074 RSMo., second-degree domestic assault, Section 565.073 RSMo., and fourth-degree domestic assault, Section 565.076 RSMo. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information *617only, setting forth the reasons for our order. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald WASHINGTON, Appellant.

No. ED 106217

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 11, 2019

FOR APPELLANTS: Nina McDonnell, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Dora A. Fichter, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Donald Washington appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of one count of second-degree domestic assault and one count of third-degree domestic assault. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.