alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10816

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMAS BALLEZA-CORTEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-40-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mexican national Tomas Balleza-Cortez (Balleza) appeals the 71-month

sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the

sentence imposed is unreasonable because the district court failed to explain

adequately its reasons for imposing sentence or for rejecting his mitigation

arguments. We review the newly raised argument for plain error only. United

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 2, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10816

2

States v. Casper, 536 F.3d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds,

2009 U.S. LEXIS 3316 (U.S. May 4, 2009) (No. 08-7228); see also United States

v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 625

(2008). To demonstrate plain error, Balleza show an error that is clear or

obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d

324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). If he makes such a

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Balleza has failed to make the required showing. His arguments are

premised upon assertion that the district court did not explain the reasons for

imposing sentence, which assertion is factually incorrect. The record makes

plain that the district court declined to depart upwardly but relied upon the facts

in the presentence report that would justify such departure, to wit: the

extensiveness of Balleza’s criminal past, his suspected involvement in gang

activities, his two adult felony convictions, and his multiple uncharged illegal

reentries, as the reason for imposing sentence at the high end of the applicable

guidelines range; it further specifically stated that it had considered the

§ 3553(a) factors in making its determination. These reasons were sufficient.

See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2469 (2007).

The within-guidelines sentence Balleza received is presumptively

substantively reasonable. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th

Cir. 2005). Balleza has not demonstrated any clear or obvious error in the

district court’s judgment, and the judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018110EN.01014001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 110/140 |

---

DECISION (EU) 2018/665 OF THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE SINGLE RESOLUTION BOARD

of 15 March 2018

on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget and on the closure of the accounts of the Single Resolution Board for the financial year 2016 (SRB/PS/2018/02)

THE SINGLE RESOLUTION BOARD IN ITS PLENARY SESSION,

Having regard to Article 50(1)(b) and 63(8) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 [(1)](#ntr1-L_2018110EN.01014001-E0001),

Having regard to Article 103, 104 and 105 of the SRB Financial Regulation,

Having regard to the final Annual Accounts of the SRB for the financial year 2016 as approved in its meeting of 22 June 2017,

Having regard to the Annual Activity Report of the SRB for the financial year 2016 as adopted in its meeting of 22 June 2017,

Having regard to the Court of Auditors' Annual Report comprising the statement of assurance on the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions and sound financial management for the financial year 2016, together with the SRB's replies,

Having regard to the Auditors' Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities (whether for the Single Resolution Board, the Council, the Commision or otherwise), arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the financial year 2016, together with the replies of the SRB, the Council and the Commission.

HAS DECIDED TO:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Grant the Chair of the SRB discharge in respect of the implementation of the SRB's budget for the financial year 2016; |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Approve the closure of the accounts of the SRB for the financial year 2016; |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Set out its observations in the motion below; |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Instruct the Chair of the Single Resolution Board to notify this Decision to the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the website of the SRB. |

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2018.

For the Plenary Session of the Board

SRB Plenary Session Member

Tuija TAOS

---

[(1)](#ntc1-L_2018110EN.01014001-E0001)  
[OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2014_225_R_TOC).

---
Case 5:17-cr-00068-EJD Document 57 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6847

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LOKHEIM JERALLE CAMPBELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00855-TLW-3; 4:16-cv-01951-TLW)

Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: June 15, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lokheim Jeralle Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lokheim Jeralle Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Campbell has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motion for appointment of 

counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 

 APPLICANT 

 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

g

3/15/17

xxxxxxxxx

ion with, local

TES DISTRICT/M

Reset Form

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3:17-CR-00073-j

MATSUO ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

Stephen D. Libowsky

Stephen D. Libowsky

Stephen D. Libowsky

the State of Illinois

Defendant Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.

Bonnie Lau

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900

Chicago, IL 60606-6361

One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, 24th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(312) 876-2529 (415) 882-5083

stephen.libowsky@dentons.com bonnie.lau@dentons.com

6187081

03/06/17

Case 4:17-cr-00073-JD Document 8 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

November 3, 2004 

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-9293, 33-11154, 33-15271, 33-18602, 33-25860, 33-28505, 33-33344,33-38220, 33-51129, 33-56577, 333-01459, 333-09867, 333-15179, 333-34543, 333-34651, 333-38163, 333-40677, 333-40675, 333-59503, 333-62987, 333-65531, 333-67183, 333-72413, 333-86267, 333-89391, 333-90907, 333-35796, 333-45540, 333-48080, 333-49788,333-52314, 333-56358, 333-59466, 333-61120, 333-62034, 333-68140, 333-73218, 333-98097, 333-100189, 333-101332, 333-101323, 333-102920, 333-108639 and 333-109303, 333-111968, 333-114550 and 333-114551; and Form S-3 Nos. 333-81101 and 333-63716) ofSun Microsystems, Inc. of our report dated November 3, 2004 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Sun Microsystems, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 26, 2004.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a partof the registration statements prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
##### 



Exhibit 10.21
  st
 
 Initial Public Offering
   Citigroup IPO Units Company Warrant Representative Prospectus Underwriters Section
1
 Business Combination Founders Common
Stock Founders
Shares IPO Shares Founders Warrants Founders Units Sponsors Warrants Co-Investment Units Co-Investment Shares Co-Investment Warrants Locked-Up




---



##### 



Securities Associated With Portfolio Company
  Consummation Date Termination Date Trust Account Claim




---



##### 



Sections 5 and 6 Related Party SPAC
 Berggruen Holdings




---



##### 



Companys Right of First Review
   provided, however,




---



##### 



Exchange Act provided, however, provided, however, Restricted Period th
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Information
   [Signature Page to Follow]




---



##### 



By:
    /s/ Nicolas BerggruenName:
    Nicolas Berggruen




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Nicolas Berggruen
March 1,
2008






Ms.
Barbara L. Marik


First
Vice President


LaSalle
Bank N.A.


135 S.
LaSalle St


Suite
1625


Chicago,
IL 60603






JP Morgan
Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.


Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates


Series
2007-LDP12


Pooling
and Servicing Agreement






OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE




Pursuant
to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), it is hereby certified to the Depositor thereunder that on behalf
of Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"}, (i) a review of the Servicer's
activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; (ii) to the
best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a failure to
fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such failure known to
the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are set forth below;
and (iii) the Servicer has not received any notice regarding qualification, or
challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the Agreement from the
IRS or any other governmental agency or body.




Nature
and Status of Failures: None.












/s/ Steven W.
Smith












A
      Member of the PNC Financial Services Group
                P.O.
      Box 419127Kansas
      City Missouri 64141-6127
                www.midlandls.com   913
      253 9000T    913
      253 9001 F
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Discover Bank

Discover Card Master Trust I

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Discover Bank, pursuant to Section 3.07(c) of the Second Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 4, 2010, as
amended (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement), by and between Discover Bank and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, hereby certifies that:



|(a) | A review of the activities of Discover Bank during the fiscal year ended November 30, 2012 and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement was
made under my supervision.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Discover Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
throughout the fiscal year ended November 30, 2012.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 19thday of February 2013.



By:

/s/ Michael F. RickertMichael F. Rickert,Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andAssistant TreasurerDiscover Bank,Master Servicer and Servicer ofDiscover Card Master Trust I
James THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 27, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
r 

2 

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN I63973) 

United States Attorney 

BARBARA VALLIERE (DCBN 439353) 

3 Chief, Criminal Division 

4 JEFFREY SHIH (CABN 296945) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

5 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 

6 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 

(415) 436-7168; jeffrey.shih@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

12 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

) CASE NO. 3:17-70I43 

) 

) STIPULATION AND 

13 v. ) [PROPOSED] ORDER REMOVING SURETY 

) FROMBOND 

14 ANTOINE FOWLER, ) 

) 

I5 --------~D~e~D~en~d=a~nt~·---------------) 

16 On February 7, 20I7, the parties appeared and agreed to the defendant's conditions of release, 

17 which included the defendant's sister Victoria Johnson signing as a surety on the defendant's appearance 

18 bond. The parties hereby stipulate as follows: 

I9 

20 

1. The defendant's sister has requested that she be removed as a surety on the bond. 

2. The defendant's mother will continue to be a surety on the bond and the custodian. 

21 Therefore, the parties respectfully request through this stipulation that the Court modify the defendant's 

22 appearance bond in order to remove the defendant's sister as a surety. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

23 DATED: February 16, 2017 Is/ Kenneth Wine 

KENNETH WINE 

24 Counsel for Defendant 

25 BRIAN J. STRETCH 

26 United States Attorney 

DATED: February I6, 20I7 Is/ Jeffrey Shih 

27 JEFFREY SHIH 

28 

Assistant United States Attorney 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REMOVING SURETY FROM BOND 

Case 3:17-mj-70143-MRGD Document 8 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 2
!Pn:OPOSE'D] ORDER REMOVING SURETY FROM APPEARANCE BOND 

2 Based on the stipulation of the parties and on good cause shown, the Court orders that the 

3 defendant's sister Victoria Johnson is hereby removed as a surety on the defendant's appearance bond. 

4 

S IT IS SO ORDERED. 

6 

7 Dated: Fe bru , 20 17 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

?~ _) 

26 

27 

28 

HON. LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED) ORDER REMOVING SURETY f ROM BOND 2 

Case 3:17-mj-70143-MRGD Document 8 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2 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 on Form 10-Q of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lori J. Foust, treasurer and principal financial officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies 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 Company.  Date: August 14, 2009By:/s/ Lori J. FoustName:Lori J. FoustTitle:Treasurer and principal financial officer  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  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.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 01, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 01, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0148. DERRICK FRANCOIS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 07SC54762
Exhibit 63

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-64 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THE TRIAL DEPOSITION OF AN 

IMMINENTLY UNAVAILABLE EXPERT WITNESS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING QUALCOMM’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THE 

TRIAL DEPOSITION OF AN 

IMMINENTLY UNAVAILABLE 

EXPERT WITNESS

Re: Dkt. No. 854-8

Qualcomm’s Motion for Leave to Take the Trial Deposition of an Imminently Unavailable 

Expert Witness is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 865 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT XI
                            U.S.B. HOLDING CO., INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND 1998

                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31
                                                          1999          1998
                                                       -----------   -----------
                                                      (000's, except share data)
                                                     
Numerator:
  Net income available to common stockholders for
    basic and diluted earnings per share               $     3,475   $     3,285
                                                       ===========   ===========
Denominator:
  Denominator for basic earnings per common share -
    weighted average shares                             15,887,853    15,362,852
  Effects of dilutive securities:
    Director and employee stock options                    697,718     1,471,642
    Restricted stock not vested                             10,937        17,980
                                                       -----------   -----------
 Total effect of dilutive securities                       708,655     1,489,622
                                                       -----------   -----------
 Denominator for diluted earnings per common share -
   adjusted weighted average shares                     16,596,508    16,852,474
                                                       ===========   ===========

Basic earnings per common share                        $      0.22   $      0.21
                                                       ===========   ===========
Diluted earnings per common share                      $      0.21   $      0.19
                                                       ===========   ===========