alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.10
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
11 Madison Ave
4th Floor
New York, NY 10010


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Trustee under the servicing
agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has
been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 1, 2008

/s/ Judith Rishel
JUDITH RISHEL
Vice President


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

2 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

5 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

6 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

7 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

8 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C5, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

9 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-05, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 20, 2011*

Decided July 20,  2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

   

No. 11‐1413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

LATONYA ROBINSON,

Defendant‐Appellant.                 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois

No. 3:10‐CR‐30142‐WDS

William D. Stiehl,

Judge.

O R D E R

LaTonya Robinson pleaded guilty to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud,

and false statements, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a), 1349, 1341, after she was caught defrauding

the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other organizations in St. Clair County,

Illinois from roughly 2005 until 2008–in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Robinson was

sentenced to a within‐guidelines term of 21 monthsʹ imprisonment. In calculating

Robinson’s guidelines range, the district court followed our decision in United States v.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).
No. 11‐1413 Page 2

Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006), and used the version of the guidelines in effect on the

date of sentencing; as a result, the court applied a 2‐level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(11), which was introduced into the 2008 version of the guidelines to address

fraudulent schemes taking advantage of disaster relief. If the court had used the guidelines

manual in effect when Robinson committed her crimes, however, her offense level, and

consequently her guidelines range, would have been lower.

On appeal Robinson contends that applying the later guidelines manual violated the

Ex Post Facto Clause because the application resulted in a higher guidelines range, thereby

creating a “significant risk of increased punishment.” She asks us to overrule Demaree,

which held not only that the district court must use the guidelines manual in effect on the

date of sentencing but also that the Ex Post Facto Clause poses no obstacle. This is not the

first time we have been invited to abandon Demaree, but we have yet to be offered a

compelling reason. See, e.g., United States v. Favara, 615 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir. 2010), cert.

denied, Custable v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 1812 (2011); United States v. Nurek, 578 F.3d 618,

625‐26 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 2093 (2010); United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d

431, 444 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1284, (2010). Robinson does not offer a new

argument but simply asks us to reconsider our position.

AFFIRMED.
Anderson CHEFFEN, petitioner, v. KANSAS.

No. 13-6555.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.
Larry Ray SWEARINGEN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-1114.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Juan Rudy ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 13-6235.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-50859 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Blanca Estela Maldonado, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1935-3 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Blanca Estela Maldonado pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (prohibiting conspiracy), 841(a)(1) (prohibiting possession 

with intent to distribute), 841(b)(1)(A) (outlining penalty). She received, 

inter alia, a below-Guidelines 262-months’-imprisonment sentence. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 25, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-50859 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2024
No. 23-50859 

2 

Maldonado claims only that there is a clerical error in the written 

judgment’s reference to the statutes of conviction. A clerical error is when 

“the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did 

another”. United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, the district 

court “may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other 

part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or 

omission”. Rule 36 applies “[w]here the record makes it clear that an issue 

was actually litigated and decided but was incorrectly recorded in or 

inadvertently omitted from the judgment”. United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 

1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 

In this instance, the appropriate statutes of conviction are clear from 

the description of the offense in the judgment. The judgment did not include 

an incorrect or inapplicable statute. And the record does not show the 

judgment is inconsistent with the district court’s intent. Therefore, a limited 

remand to correct a clerical error is not required. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

36; United States v. Nagin, 810 F.3d 348, 354 (5th Cir. 2016) (affirming 

judgment “without affecting the district court’s authority to correct any 

clerical errors”). Nevertheless, the district court may exercise its discretion 

to clarify its intended judgment, or Maldonado may move the court to do so 

after her appellate proceedings are complete. See id. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-50859 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2024
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



### ____________________

No. 00-40934 Summary Calendar



### ____________________

GARRY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.



### ____________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(5:99-CV-226)



### ____________________________________________________________ April 16, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to a certificate of appealability granted by the

district court, Garry Williams (TDCJ # 512111) appeals the district

court’s determina tion that his habeas corpus petition should be

dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Williams

asse rted in his petition that his calendar time and good-time

credits unconstitutionally were forfeited after he was

reincarcerated on a parole violation. He contends that he is in2

the custo dy of an administrative agency; and that, therefore, §

2244(d) does not apply. He also contends that a parole revocation

is not the equivalent of a conviction.

Williams’ contentions are without merit; his challenge to the

denial of sentencing credit for the time he spent on parole,

“although directly arising from an order of the pardon and parole

board, nevertheless also is one arising” from the judgment of a

state court. S ee Newby v. Johns on , 81 F.3d 567, 569 (5th Cir.

1996). Section 2244(d), by its terms, applies to “an application

for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court ”. S ee § 2244(d)(1) (emphasis added). In

Alexander v. Johnson , 163 F.3d 906, 907 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998), this

court noted that a petition, which challenged the revoc ation of

parole, was “timely filed” under § 2244(d).

We do not consider the contentions raised for the first time

by Williams in his reply brief. S ee Stevens v. C.I.T. Group/Equip.

Fin., Inc. , 955 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Knighten

v. C.I.R. , 702 F.2d 59, 60 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 464 U.S.

897 (1983).

AFFIRMED
Mehdi SARRESHTEDARI, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-10107.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 15, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Edward C. FEUER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10992.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 104

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1359

[Report No. 109–167] 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 

program for alternative water source projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005

Mr. DAVIS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

JULY 13, 2005

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend 

the pilot program for alternative water source projects.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1359 RH 

1 SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER 

2 SOURCE PROJECTS. 

3 Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

4 Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended in the first sentence—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘$125,000,000’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘2002 through 2004’’ and in8 serting ‘‘2006 through 2010’’.

9 SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER 

10 SOURCE PROJECTS. 

11 Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

12 Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended in the first sentence 

13 by striking ‘‘$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 

14 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘$125,000,000’’. 

Union Calendar No. 104

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1359

[Report No. 109–167] 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

source projects. to extend the pilot program for alternative water 

JULY 13, 2005

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
Help Prevent Cronobacter Illness:

Prepare and Store Powdered Infant Formula Safely 

In most cases, it is safe to mix powdered infant formula following manufacturer’s instructions. But if your baby is less 

than 2 months old, was born prematurely, or has a weakened immune system, you may want to take the following 

extra steps to prepare your formula with hot water (at least 158°F/70°C) to help protect against Cronobacter:

Use prepared infant formula within 1 hour from start of feeding and within 2 hours of preparing it. If your baby does not finish 

the entire bottle of formula, throw away leftover formula.

If you do not plan to start feeding your baby with the prepared formula right away, refrigerate it immediately.

Use refrigerated formula within 24 hours. If you can’t remember how long you have kept formula in the refrigerator, it is safer 

to throw it out than to feed it to your baby. For more information visit www.cdc.gov/cronobacter

Clean work surfaces, such as 

countertops and sinks with soap 

and water, or use a disinfectant 

wipe or paper towel sprayed with 

cleaning product. Do not place 

feeding items directly in the sink, 

because germs in sinks or drains 

could contaminate these items.

Add the exact amount of formula 

listed on the container.

Boil water and let it cool for 

about 5 minutes.

If you plan to use the prepared 

formula right away, cool the formula 

to body temperature to ensure it 

is not too hot before feeding your 

baby. Run the prepared, capped 

bottle under cool water or place 

it into an ice bath. Do not let the 

cooling water get into the bottle or 

on the nipple.

Pour the water into a clean 

bottle or feeding cup.

Before feeding the baby, test the 

formula’s temperature by putting 

a few drops on the inside of your 

wrist. It should feel warm, not hot.

Wash hands with soap and water 

before preparing infant formula.

Carefully shake the capped bottle 

rather than stirring the mixture.
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Simmons Bank acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 8, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000711039
<NAME> MAXTOR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-25-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-26-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,405
<INVENTORY>                                    143,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,379
<PP&E>                                         220,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          306,321
<BONDS>                                        100,664
<COMMON>                                           530<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (9,758)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,757
<SALES>                                        597,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               597,300
<CGS>                                          567,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,100<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (56,864)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (58,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.11)
<FN>
<F1>COMMON INCLUDES: $195 FOR $O.O1 PAR VALUE CLASS A COMMON (19,480,000
SHARES ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING); $335 FOR $0.01 PAR VALUE COMMON (33,540,710
ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING)
<F2>OTHER-SE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $332,528 AND ACCUMULATED
DEFICIT OF $342,286
<F3>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT EXP OF $44,638 AND SELLING,
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXP OF $38,462
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32


<PAGE>


     In connection with the Annual Report of Cyprium Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Jeffrey A. Collins, the
Principal Executive and 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 his 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 results of the Company.


April 9, 2009                       By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Collins
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Jeffrey A. Collins, Principal Executive
                                           and Financial Officer
Denny R. HARDIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9466.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32
 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 Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
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 Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: August 10, 2009 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.