alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 138 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.138

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
  To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
                    System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER 
RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.
    (a) In General.--The map subtitled ``GA-06P'', relating to the John 
H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal 
Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P, that is included in 
the set of maps entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
System'' and referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is hereby replaced by another map 
relating to the unit entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P'' and dated July 10, 2006.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Alonzo SUGGS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-978.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                    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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal American Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard A. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


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





/s/ Richard A. Barasch



Richard A. Barasch
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50509.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

DECIDED: April 23, 2004.

Diane D Kirstein, Joseph H Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jon Karl Schmid, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Renteria appeals from his jury-verdict conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that: (1) the jury instructions improperly conflated the intent elements for both conspiracy counts; (2) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for the methamphetamine count; (3) the district court improperly influenced the jury’s verdict; and (4) the district court erred by admitting an audio tape contain*950ing a telephone conversation between himself and an informant.

As Renteria did not object to the jury instructions or submit a proposed jury instruction as to the intent element, this issue is reviewed only for plain error. *See United States v. Martin,*332 F.3d 827, 834 (5th Cir.2003). Examination of the jury instructions does not reveal plain error as to the intent element. As Renteria did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the Government’s case or at the close of all evidence, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence “is reviewed only to determine if the defendant’s conviction constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice.” *United States v. Griffin,*324 F.3d 330, 356 (5th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to establish all of the required elements for Renteria’s conviction on the methamphetamine count.

Renteria’s allegations that the district court imposed a one-day limit for his criminal trial and responded erroneously to one of the jury’s notes during its deliberations lack factual merit. Furthermore, because the challenged audio tape was sufficiently authenticated and it was not misleading, Renteria has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by admitting that audio tape. *See United States v. Lance,*853 F.2d 1177, 1181 (5th Cir.1988); *United States v. Branch,*91 F.3d 699, 727-28 (5th Cir.1996).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Jed Stewart LINEBERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10286.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EX-34.3
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800
Dallas TX 75201-2997
Telephone (214) 999 1400
Facsimile (214) 754 7991


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas,
L.P. (the "Company" and an indirect subsidiary of The First American
Corporation) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for
residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the
Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the
"Platform"), as of December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended, excluding
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are
not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the
Platform. Management's assertion identifies the individual securities defined by
management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and the servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent
to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and
commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 12, 2008
EXHIBIT 3

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 184-3 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 1
Cardellia ANDERSON, petitioner, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, dba Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions.

No. 12-8959.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
LaSalle
      Bank N.A.135
      South LaSalle StreetSuite
      1625Chicago,
      IL 60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services


Annual
Statement of Compliance
 
 VIA:
EMAIL
 
 Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
 250 Vesey
Street
 4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor
 New York,
New York 10080
 
 Home Loan
Services, Inc.
 150
Allegheny Center Mall
 Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15212
 
 Re:
                Merrill Lynch First
      Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust,Mortgage Loan
      Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5
 
 Reference
is made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of
September 1, 2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as Depositor,
Home Loan Services, Inc., as Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as
Trustee, relating to Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage
Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5
 
 I,
Barbara L. Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee hereby certify that:
 
 (1)
A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and
of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and
 
 (2)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
year or a portion thereof.
 
 
 Date:
February 27, 2008
 
 LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee
 
 
 /s/
Barbara L. Marik
 Barbara
L. Marik
 Senior
Vice President
#### Israel ESCOBAR-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70689.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided April 30, 2004.

Lisa Dibbern Duran, Esq., Quarles & Brady Streich Lang, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, Donald E. Keener, Esq., Victor M. Lawrence, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Israel Eseobar-Contreras was denied suspension of deportation because he failed to establish extreme' hardship. Thereafter he filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) based on ineffective assistance by his former counsel. The BIA denied his motion. On appeal, EscobarContreras claims that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that he was not prejudiced by his former counsel’s errors.

Citing *Coleman v. Thompson,*501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the government argues that a petitioner cannot assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (“LAC”) in removal proceedings. Our circuit precedent is to the contrary, *see Fong Yang Lo v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir.2003), and, until now, the government has accepted this view. We see no reason to change our well established rule and, in any event, this “panel not sitting en banc may not overturn Ninth Circuit precedent,” *Nichols v. McCormick,*929 F.2d 507, 510 n. 5 (9th Cir.1991).

Nevertheless, in order to prevail on an IAC claim, a petitioner must show prejudice. *Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003). We agree with the BIA that Eseobar-Contreras was not prejudiced by the alleged errors of his former counsel. The claimed errors relate to evidence that was either unhelpful or cumulative and such evidence would not have helped Eseobar-Contreras establish extreme hardship.

DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Arturo RODRIGUEZ-RIOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9014.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Parallel  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Glenn A. Little,  Chief  Executive and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: July 16, 2004                               By:     /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Parallel  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Parallel
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
Gregory WOLFE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1065.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

*2798Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                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 Textron
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report), I, Stephen A. Giliotti, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.


                               /s/ Stephen A. Giliotti
                                -------------------------------------------
                               Stephen A. Giliotti
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                               Date:    August 12, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                      17,292,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,363,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,796,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     567,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,363,472
<SALES>                                        559,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               630,866
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               170,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,467)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,467)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,317,830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    90.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    90.91
        

</TABLE>
case 4:12-cv-00078-TLS-APR document 1 filed 12/20/12 page 1 of 5
case 4:12-cv-00078-TLS-APR document 1 filed 12/20/12 page 2 of 5
case 4:12-cv-00078-TLS-APR document 1 filed 12/20/12 page 3 of 5
case 4:12-cv-00078-TLS-APR document 1 filed 12/20/12 page 4 of 5
case 4:12-cv-00078-TLS-APR document 1 filed 12/20/12 page 5 of 5
" 

„ 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0425 

JAY DONALD WITKOWSKI, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

11. 

SEP 0 2 2021 

Br•vv n Greenwood r3f •-' N".4,n'e Court 

ORDER 

Jay Donald Witkowski moves this Court for appointment of counsel in his appeal. 

As grounds, Witkowski provides that he is incarcerated and indigent. 

Witkowski appeals the June 10, 2021 Valley County District Court's dismissal of 

his petition for postconviction relief. There is no right to the appointment of counsel in a 

postconviction proceeding for relief, although a court may order the assignment of counsel 

under the circumstances outlined in § 46-8-104, MCA. Witkowski represented himself in 

his postconviction proceeding before the District Court. He has not demonstrated that 

extraordinary circumstances exist to justify appointment of counsel, pursuant to § 46-8-

104(3), MCA. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Witkowski's "Application for Court Appointed Attorney," 

deemed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Jay 

Donald Witkowski along with a copy of this Court's Appellate Handbook. 

DATED this 1-.-54 day of August, 2021. 

p4-crk•40." 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

09/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0425
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

EUREKA DIVISION

JEANETTE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY LAND COMPANY

d/b/a EVERGREEN VILLAGE, READ 

INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00913-RMI 

ORDER

JEANETTE BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY LAND COMPANY

d/b/a EVERGREEN VILLAGE, READ 

INVESTMENTS, LLC, and E. RICHARD 

THOMAS, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02699-RMI 

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Substitute Penny Cutting for Plaintiff Jeanette 

Brown (the “Motion”) based on Ms. Brown’s death approximately three weeks earlier. (dkts. 60-

63). The Motion noticed a hearing for August 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Id.

However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the hearing. The court has questions regarding the 

Motion, including which claims survive Ms. Brown’s death. See Barria v. Yu, No. 08-CV-0908 

BEN (CAB), 2010 WL 2653322, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2010). In addition, at the hearing,

counsel for Defendant Read Investments, LLC raised questions regarding whether Ms. Cutting is 
2

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

the “proper party” for substitution. Furthermore, Read Investments filed notices of death for Ms.

Brown and Plaintiff Norma Lowe on July 17, 2019. See Brown v. Sonoma Cty. Land Co., No. 18-

cv-02699-RMI (N.D. Cal. 2018) (dkts. 42 & 43). Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to 

meet and confer regarding the status of Plaintiffs and are directed to file a joint statement and/or 

proposed order regarding substitution of all deceased Plaintiffs no later than September 15, 2019.

In addition, the parties must include a list of three proposed dates for mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2019

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge