alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41063 Summary Calendar

FLOYD MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-606

- - - - - - - - - - January 25, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Floyd Murray, Texas state prisoner # 520390, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The district court dismissed Murray’s complaint under § 1997e(a), reasoning that under amended 1997e, exhaustion of administrative remedies was a mandatory prerequisite to filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.No. 97-41063 -2- The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision, Whitley v. Hunt , 158 F.3d 882, 887 (5th Cir. 1998). In Whitley , 158 F.3d at 885-87, this court clarified that under amended 1997e, “federal prisoners pressing Bivens claims against federal officials need not pursue prison remedies when they are seeking exclusively monetary relief, and there are no prison remedies capable of affording such relief.” Because Murray sought exclusively monetary relief, he may not have been required to pursue administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Whitley , 158 F.3d at 887; Marsh v. Jones , 53 F.3d 707, 710 (5th Cir. 1995); McCarthy v. Madigan , 503 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1992). The district court’s dismissal of Murray’s civil rights complaint for non-exhaustion is VACATED and the cause REMANDED for the court to address the issue whether monetary relief is available through the grievance procedure. See id. If monetary relief is available, dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is appropriate. If, however, monetary relief is unavailable, Murray should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Whitley , 158 F.3d at 885-87.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6178 

To require applicants for assistance under section 811 of the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act for supportive housing for 

persons with disabilities to hold public meetings regarding such applications. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. DJOU introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require applicants for assistance under section 811 of 

the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 

for supportive housing for persons with disabilities to 

hold public meetings regarding such applications. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Awareness 

5 Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY MEETING REQUIREMENT. 

7 Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Af8 fordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6178 IH

1 (1) in subsection (j), by adding at the end the 

2 following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(8) COMMUNITY MEETING.—The Secretary 

4 may not provide assistance under this section with 

5 respect to an application unless the applicant has 

6 held at least one meeting regarding the application 

7 that meets the following requirements: 

8 ‘‘(A) Public notice of such meeting shall be 

9 provided in advance of the meeting in accord10 ance with standards that the Secretary shall es11 tablish. 

12 ‘‘(B) The meeting shall be open to the 

13 public. 

14 ‘‘(C) The meeting shall be held in the 

15 neighborhood in which the housing proposed to 

16 be assisted under this section is to be located. 

17 ‘‘(D) The meeting shall provide interested 

18 persons an opportunity to obtain information 

19 from the applicant regarding, and to comment 

20 on, the application for assistance under this 

21 section and the housing proposed to be assisted. 

22 ‘‘(E) The meeting shall be conducted by a 

23 representative of the applicant.’’; and 

24 (2) in subsection (f)— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6178 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (B) by redesignating paragraph (7) as 

4 paragraph (8); and 

5 (C) by inserting after paragraph (6) the 

6 following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(7) a certification from the applicant that the 

8 applicant has held a public meeting regarding the 

9 application in accordance with subsection (i)(8); 

10 and’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the Annual Report of Sunnyside Acres Mobile Estates (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hui Peng Cheng, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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, to 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 results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
January 20, 2010




By:
            /s/
      Hui Peng ChengHui
      Peng ChengPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer
Exhibit 99.5

Countrywide Home Loans Company Logo Here

Countrywide Home Loans
400 Countrywide Way, SV-44
Simi Valley, California  93065-6298
(805) 520-5100

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
1761 East St. Andrew Place
Santa Ana, CA  92705
Attn:  Alan Sueda
Re:  Harborview 2000-1

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph M. Candelario, hereby certify that I am the First Vice
President, Loan Administration of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., fka
Countrywide Funding Corporation.  I further certify, with respect
to the Servicing Agreements for Countrywide Mortgage Obligations,
Inc., the following:

I have reviewed the activities and performances of the Servicer during
the fiscal year ended February 28, 2001 under the Agreements and, to
the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under the Agreements
throughout the fiscal year.


/s/  Joseph M. Candelario
Joseph M. Candelario
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration


April 11, 2001
Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001044979
<NAME> IRI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          57,356
<SECURITIES>                                     1,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                       512
<INVENTORY>                                     95,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,454
<PP&E>                                          49,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 247,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           399
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   247,377
<SALES>                                         47,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,232
<CGS>                                           35,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,494
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,122
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GameTech International,
        Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay
        Meilstrup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
        U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/
                Jay M. MeilstrupJay
                  M. MeilstrupChief Executive OfficerSeptember 14, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Sutton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered March 2, 1984, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first *656degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was unduly prejudiced by comments made by the prosecutor in his summation is without merit. "Although several of the prosecutor’s remarks were better left unsaid”, such remarks did not operate to deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(People v Gonzalez,*102 AD2d 895). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence, of the defendant’s guilt, any error committed must be deemed harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Schramm,*92 AD2d 905).

We find the defendant’s remaining contentions to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, RobRoy Walters, certify that:


1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lawrence Financial
     Holdings, Inc;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact 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 all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our 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

     c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation 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 the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: March 12, 2004


/s/ RobRoy Walters
----------------------------------
RobRoy Walters
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOOLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,211,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,590,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,681,707
<PP&E>                                     176,308,608
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,513,393)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             203,457,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,271,891
<BONDS>                                     63,984,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,081
<OTHER-SE>                                 134,386,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               203,457,372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,623,601
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,264,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,070,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,240,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,240,896
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,240,896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21753-21754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10739]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. MG98-8-002 and MG98-13-001]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

April 25, 2001.
    Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company filed revised standards of 
conduct on April 18, 2001 in accordance with the Commission's March 19, 
2001 Order. 94 FERC para. 61,325 (2001).
    Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company states that it served copies of 
the filing on all parties in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest in this proceeding with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 
385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on 
or before May 10, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection. This

[[Page 21754]]

filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and 
interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of 
paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10739 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Enterprise
Value Award Plan
 April
30, 2008
 
 Amendment
to Reflect
 Supplemental
Award to Ronald Rossetti
 December
4, 2008
 
 
 Except as
set forth below, the terms of the Enterprise Value Award Plan (the “Plan”)
provided to Mr. Rossetti (“Executive”)
remain unchanged:
 
 1.           Section
2.1 is amended by inserting “$8” before “$11” and by inserting after the first
sentence: “The tranche based on $8 is referred to herein as the “Supplemental
Tranche.”
 
 2.           Section
2.4 is amended by inserting before the semicolon “or, for the Supplemental
Tranche, its date of grant December 4, 2008.”
 
 3.           Section
3 is amended by inserting in the table the following row as a new second
row:
 
 
 $8
                        150,000
 
 and by
revising the last two sentences to say “(In other words, if the Share Price
Performance Target were met at $13, the Executive would receive RSUs equivalent
to 185,000 shares plus RSUs equivalent to 180,000 (the $11 target) and RSUs
equivalent to 150,000 (the $8 target) but only if the $11 and $8 targets had not
previously been paid.)  In addition, the maximum number of shares or
cash equivalents that can be issued with respect to this Plan is 700,000
shares.”
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment.
 TIER
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.January 25, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Samuel Cabot IIIDate
                
                Samuel
      Cabot IIIChair,
      Compensation CommitteeTHE
      EXECUTIVEJanuary 25, 2009
                
                /s/ Ronald L. RossettiDate
                
                Ronald
      L. Rossetti, Sr.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the IMCO Recycling Inc. Amendedand Restated Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-34745), the IMCO Recycling Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 Nos. 33-76780, 333-00075, and 333-71339), the IMCO Recycling Inc. Annual Incentive Program (Form S-8 Nos. 333-07091 and 333-71335), theIMCO Recycling Inc. Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-81949), and the IMCO Recycling Inc. 2000 Restricted Stock Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-55962) of our report dated March 5, 2004 (except for “Revisions and Reclassifications” in Note A, asto which the date is October 20, 2004) with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IMCO Recycling Inc., as amended, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

October 20, 2004

Dallas, Texas
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

BANTA UNGURU, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 22-10088 

 22-10089

 

D.C. Nos. 2:21-cr-00270-SMB-1 

 2:20-cr-00542-SMB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated appeals, Banta Unguru appeals from the district court’s 

judgments and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 87-month 

sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and

possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, in violation of 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JAN 26 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-10088 & 22-10089

18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1028A(a)(1), and 1029(a)(3), respectively. Pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Unguru’s counsel has filed a brief stating that 

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record. Unguru has filed a pro se brief. No answering brief has been filed. 

Unguru waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Unguru’s pro se 

arguments that the government breached the plea agreement, and that his plea and 

appellate waiver were not knowing and voluntary, are not supported by the record. 

We accordingly dismiss these appeals.

We remand, however, with instructions to correct the written judgments to 

conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence by (1) imposing a 12-month term 

of supervised release on the aggravated identity theft count, and (2) deleting the 

phrase “(outpatient and/or inpatient)” from special supervised release condition 1 

in both judgments. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 

2015) (unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls over inconsistent 

written judgment).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgments.