alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alejandro CAMACHO-LOPEZ, Appellant.

No. 03-3120.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

John James Ware, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*433Alejandro Camacho-Lopez, Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, NJ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Camacho-Lopez (Camacho) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Camacho has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Camacho pleaded guilty to entering the United States after having been previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction, namely a 1992 state aggravated-assault conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court granted Camacho’s motion for downward departure based on his overstated criminal history, and reduced his criminal history category from III to II. The court sentenced Camacho to 41 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.

In the *Anders*brief, counsel suggests the district court erred by not departing further. This issue is unreviewable. *See United States v. Butcher,*8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993) (extent of district court’s downward departure is unreviewable on appeal, regardless of court’s reasons for refraining from departing further). In his pro se submissions, Camacho argues that both his counsel in the instant proceedings and the attorney who represented him on the state aggravated-assault charge were ineffective. The claim as to current counsel is more appropriately raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, *see United States v. Martin,*59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995), and Camacho cannot collaterally attack his prior state conviction in proceedings for the instant offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (n.6) (Guidelines do not confer upon defendant any right to attack collaterally prior conviction or sentence beyond any such rights otherwise recognized in law).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 62 filed 07/22/14 page 1 of 4
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 62 filed 07/22/14 page 2 of 4
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 62 filed 07/22/14 page 3 of 4
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 62 filed 07/22/14 page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7084

GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR., and family on behalf of Virginia

Green, mother,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PHILIP MORRIS, tobacco manufacturers; BROWN & WILLIAMSON

TOBACCO CORPORATION, tobacco manufacturers; B.J. REYNOLDS

TOBACCO COMPANY, tobacco manufacturers,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:03-cv-00157-RGD)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 28, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Samuel Green, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Green v.

Philip Morris, No. 2:03-cv-00157-RGD (E.D. Va. June 18, 2007). We

deny Green’s motion to appoint counsel and to “interduct evidence.”

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-S8 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including August 24, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                          15,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,652
<INVENTORY>                                    162,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               435,211
<PP&E>                                         286,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 545,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          541,015
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        880
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (214,680)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   545,649
<SALES>                                      1,080,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,080,882
<CGS>                                          956,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  956,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,319<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (202.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (202.72)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER SE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $538,254 UNREALIZED GAIN ON
INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SECURITIES OF $24,922 AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT OF
$777,856.
<F2>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF $70,096 AND SELLING, GENERAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $34,315, AND STOCK COMPENSATION EXPENSE OF $9,908.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EX-35.2
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
Column Financial, Inc.

Re: Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C4 (the "Trust"), Commercial
    Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C4


I, Jeffrey Altabef, a Vice President of COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Sub-Servicer (the "Sub-Servicer") under that certain
Sub-Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"),
between the Sub-Servicer and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as
master servicer, hereby certify as follows:

1. A review of the activities of the Sub-Servicer and of its performance under
the Agreement during the calendar year 2007 has been made under my supervision;
and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Sub-Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year 2007.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 14th day of March 2008, I have hereunto signed my
name.

COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC.


By: /s/ Jeffrey Altabef
Name: Jeffrey Altabef
Title: Vice President
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 1 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 2 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 3 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 4 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 5 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 92   filed 09/26/14   page 6 of 6
**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 **

|   |  Date: | January              16, 2007                                           |
|--------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |                                                                    |
|   |        |  /s/              Alex Trevino, Jr.                                |
|   |        |  Alex                TrevinoChief                Executive Officer |
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10584

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Joshua Matthew Garvin, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-252-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Joshua Matthew Garvin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He contends that his 

guilty plea should be vacated because the magistrate judge violated Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) during his plea colloquy by failing 

either to recite the terms of his appeal waiver or to read the full waiver 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10584 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2024
No. 23-10584

2

provision from his plea agreement instead of referring to the waiver and 

noting that it had exceptions. We review the forfeited Rule 11 argument for 

plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Garvin must 

show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a 

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

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

id. 

We perceive no error by the magistrate judge. Garvin’s signed plea 

agreement and the transcript of his plea colloquy reflect that he read and 

understood the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that he was aware of 

his right to appeal and that he was waiving it in the plea agreement, and that 

he had no questions about the waiver. See United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 

715 F.3d 945, 949, 955 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 

411-12 (5th Cir. 2011). Additionally, Garvin’s argument on the third prong 

of the plain error standard is purely conclusory, see United States v. 

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82-83 (2004), and he entirely failsto address 

the fourth prong, see United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 273-74 (5th Cir. 

2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appointed counsel Josh Norrell’s continued assertion, largely 

verbatim, of the same unavailing challenge to plea colloquies that are 

essentially indistinguishable now borders on frivolous. Counsel is 

WARNED that sanctions may be imposed for the filing of frivolous appeals. 

See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); Coghlan v. 

Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case: 23-10584 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2024
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1321 

To make funds available to pay the United States prisoners of war that 

brought suit against the Government of Iraq in the case of Acree v. 

Republic of Iraq. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005 

Mr. STRICKLAND (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. 

FILNER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Mr. TOWNS, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on International Relations 

A BILL 

To make funds available to pay the United States prisoners 

of war that brought suit against the Government of 

Iraq in the case of Acree v. Republic of Iraq. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENTS TO UNITED STATES PRISONERS OF 

4 WAR BASED ON COURT JUDGMENT. 

5 (a) PAYMENTS.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

6 pay, out of funds described in subsection (b), $1,000,000 

7 to each of the 17 plaintiffs in the case of Acree v. Republic 
2 

•HR 1321 IH 

1 of Iraq, 271 F.Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2003) that were held 

2 captive by Iraq during the first Gulf War. 

3 (b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—$17,000,000 shall be avail4 able, from unobligated funds appropriated under chapter 

5 2 of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropria6 tions Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq 

7 and Afghanistan, 2004, under the heading ‘‘OTHER BI8 LATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE—FUNDS AP9 PROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT—IRAQ RELIEF AND RE10 CONSTRUCTION FUND’’, for payments under subsection 

11 (a). 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CR-05

)

VICTOR ALPHONSO ROSILES )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on May 2, 2012, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel

for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the 2-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2012.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

CAROLYN MALONEY, c/o ) 

Denny Maloney, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-842-PPS-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants, ALAUNUS 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; and GREGORY 

CONIGLIARO. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Janelle P. Kilies 

JANELLE P. KILIES, #30708-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 13 filed 01/09/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on January 9, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

/s/ Janelle P. Kilies 

 JANELLE P. KILIES 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

jkilies@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\14 - Maloney\Federal Court Action\appearance_JXK_Alaunus.docx

case 3:12-cv-00842-PPS-CAN document 13 filed 01/09/13 page 2 of 2
EX-34.3
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG
Quality In Everything We Do

Ernst & Young LLP
901 E. Cary Street Suite 1000
Richmond, VA 23219

Phone (804) 344-6000
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors
SunTrust Bank


We have examined management's assertion included in the accompanying report of
Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
SunTrust Bank (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing
platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007. Refer to management's assertion for the asset backed transactions
covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by 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 less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either 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 for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in
all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


March 6, 2008
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 **SECTION
        906 CERTIFICATION**
 
 
 I,
        Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
        corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that:
 
 (1)
        the
        accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
        ended
        June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
                9, 2005
              By:
              /s/ Jeffrey
                F. O'DonnellJeffrey
                F. O'DonnellChief
                Executive Officer
  
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
        otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
        electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
        been
        provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
EX-35.2
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation
Proven Performance


ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION



I, Mark T. Novachek and Michelle Viner as Officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation
("EMC") as Master Servicer pursuant to the Bear Steams Asset Backed Securities I
Trust 2007-AC6 (the "Agreement") hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC Master Servicing activities during the period from and
   including September 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the
   "Reporting Period") and EMC's Master Servicing performance under the
   Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC Master Servicing has
   fulfilled all of its obligation under the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the Reporting Period in all material respects.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th
day of March 2008.

/s/ Mark T. Novachek
Mark T. Novachek
Senior Vice President


/s/ Michelle Viner
Michelle Viner
Manager - Vice President



800 State Highway 121 Bypass, Lewisville, TX 75067-4180
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293150, Lewisville, TX 75029-3150

(logo) Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America