alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel DUNCAN-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40640

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 29, 2013.

Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant *337U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carmen Roe, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joel Duncan-Martinez (Duncan) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He was deemed a career offender and, after a downward departure, was sentenced to 98 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Duncan is not entitled to relief on appeal. The district court did not plainly err in applying the career offender enhancement as the state court charging documents for Duncan’s 1998 and 2003 convictions reveal that Duncan violated the state statute within the relevant definition of a controlled substance offense for purposes of the career offender enhancement. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b); *United States v. Roberts,*255 Fed.Appx. 849, 851 (5th Cir.2007). Additionally, the district court’s denial of a mitigating role adjustment was not clearly erroneous because Duncan’s roles, such as being a contact person, recruiting his son to assist him, and stealing the marijuana that he intended to sell, were essential, not peripheral, to the overall scheme underlying the instant offense of conviction. *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203 *&*n. 9 (5th Cir.2005).

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 27 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
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 of Sinobiopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lequn Huang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.








Date: April 13, 2010
By:
/s/ Lequn HuangLequn Huang

President, CEO, Treasurer and Director

(principal executive officer)
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL GAY

*Mary H. Trainer,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Margaret Gaffney Radionovas,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 21, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 806 (AC 24646), is denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Arthur W. Budich, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant");

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 circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financialcondition, 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 officer 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 theRegistrant, 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 proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (The Registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of the Company's annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

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

> 
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'sability 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:  August 9, 2004

----
exv10w38



 






Exhibit 10.38




Non-Employee Director Compensation

(Summary of Non-Equity Compensation)




	 	 	 
	Element	 	Amount
	Retainer

	 	$45,000 annually. Directors have the option to
take all or part of this retainer as stock,
which will be valued at the closing price on
the New York Stock Exchange on the last trading
day of the fiscal quarter preceding the quarter
with respect to which payment is due.
	 
	 	 
	Board Meeting Fees

	 	$2,000 per meeting
	 
	 	 
	Committee Meeting Fees

	 	$1,000 per meeting
	 
	 	 
	Committee Chair Retainers

	 	Audit: $12,000 annually

HR & Compensation: $5,000 annually

Nominating and Governance: $5,000 annually
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 SRKP 15, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              April
                24, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of the Application 

of LedgerX LLC for 

Designation as a Contract Market 

ORDER OF DESIGNATION 

LedgerX LLC ("LedgerX") has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission ("Commission"), pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 

7 U.S.C. § 7(a), and Commission Regulation 38.3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 38.3(a), an application for 

designation as a contract market, which includes submissions dated November 20, 2018 through 

May 21, 2019. Having reviewed LedgerX' s application, the Commission makes the following 

findings and rulings: 

WHEREAS LedgerX has represented that it will not permit any futures commission 

merchant ("FCM") to clear trades executed on, or pursuant to the rules of, the contract market on 

behalf of third parties (customers). 

WHEREAS the Commission staff reviewed LedgerX's application for designation as a 

contract market, including LedgerX' s rules, and conducted an onsite technical evaluation of 

LedgerX's operational capabilities to evaluate whether LedgerX was in compliance with the core 
principles and corresponding regulations in accordance with Section 5(d) of the Act, 7 U.S.C 

7(d)(l). 

WHEREAS based on its review, staff concludes that LedgerX' s application, including all 

amendments thereto and representation made by LedgerX, demonstrates compliance with the 

applicable requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations for designation as a 

contract market. 

The Commission FINDS that LedgerX has demonstrated, as required by Section 6(a) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 8(a), and Regulation 38.3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 38.3(a), that LedgerX complies 

with the provisions set forth in the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder applicable 

to designation as a contract market and provides a sufficient assurance that it will continue to 

comply with the requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations. 

Therefore: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 5 and 6(a) of the Act, that the 

application ofLedgerX for designation as a contract market is approved, subject to the terms and 

conditions specified herein: 

(1) LedgerX shall not permit any FCM to clear trades executed on, or pursuant to the 

rules of, the contract market on behalf of third-party customers, unless LedgerX first notifies the 

Commission of its intent to do so and submits any applicable rule changes pursuant to 17 C.F .R. 

Part 40. 

(2) LedgerX shall comply with all representations and submissions made by LedgerX 

in support of its application for designation as a contract market, as shown in the application 

record; and 

2 
(3) LedgerX shall comply with all provisions of the Act and all requirements set forth 

in the Commission's regulations, as may be amended or adopted from time to time, that are 

applicable to designated contract markets. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of June, 2019. 

By the Commission 

ctU;4-~.94 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick 

Secretary of the Commission 

3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Freddie Perez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two amended sentences of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), both imposed July 12, 1988, upon adjudicating him to be in violation of probation, upon his plea of guilty, the sentences being concurrent indeterminate terms of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment on the underlying convictions of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under Schenectady County superior court information No. 77/87 and assault in the second degree under Schenectady County superior court information No. 78/ 87.

Ordered that the amended sentence imposed under Schenectady County superior court information No. 78/87 is reversed, the plea of guilty to a charge of violation of probation thereunder is vacated and that charge of violation is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended sentence imposed under Schenectady County superior court information 77/87 is affirmed.

In January 1988 the defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to run concurrently with and as a condition of *643a term of five years’ probation following his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under Schenectady County superior court information No. 77/ 87 and to a concurrent term of eight months’ imprisonment following his conviction of assault in the second degree under Schenectady County superior court information No. 78/87. In May 1988 the defendant was charged with having violated the terms and conditions of probation by having been rearrested on two separate occasions. After a negotiated plea, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years on his original convictions. The People concede that the sentence imposed on the original conviction of assault in the second degree must be vacated as the defendant was originally sentenced to a definite term of eight months’ imprisonment and was not subject to resentencing. As to the 2-to-6-year term imposed upon the original conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, we perceive no basis for concluding that the sentence requires modification in the interest of justice, particularly in view of the fact that the defendant was rearrested the first time less than two months after the probationary term was imposed and pleaded guilty knowing that he faced a potential maximum term of *2 Vs*years to 7 years’ imprisonment *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [d]; [3] [b]). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
154 So. 784

#### LEVANS v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

6 Div. 422.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 26, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1934.

W. A. Denson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

*644Chas. H. Eyster, of Decatur, and White E. Gibson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

While brevity in pleading is commendable, nevertheless a complaint to withstand appropriate demurrer “should be certain and specific as to charging the relationship of the parties, the duty arising, the nature and character of the injury, as well as the cause of same.” (Italics supplied.) Alabama Power Co. v. Allen, 218 Ala. 416, 418, 118 So. 662, 663; Doullut & Williams v. Hoffman, 204 Ala. 33, 86 So. 73; Alabama Baptist Hospital Board v. Carter, 226 Ala. 109, 145 So. 443.

The only facts averred as matters of inducement are that, “on, to-wit, October 25, 1925, plaintiff, while riding in an automobile on a public highway in Jefferson County, State of Alabama, was injured at a public road crossing in said County and State as follows: said automobile collided with a train upon said public road crossing.” There is nothing in these averments showing any connection or relation of the defendant, either with the train or the automobile, and therefore it does not appear what, if any, duty the defendant owed the plaintiff.

In the absence of averments showing that the defendant operated, controlled, or managed, in some way, the colliding instrumentalities, or one of them, the averment that the defendant “caused said automobile to collide with said train” is insufficient to show or even suggest actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, and the general averment that “defendant negligently” caused the collision does not cure the defect. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 279, 60 So. 262, 263; Alabama Baptist Hospital Board v. Carter, supra.

Our judgment is that grounds 2, 3, 4, and 6 were well taken, and the demurrer was properly sustained.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONUNDER SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each ofthe undersigned certifies that:

 

1. This periodic report complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this periodic report fairly represents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofApex Mortgage Capital, Inc.

 

 
| Dated: November 14, 2003 | /s/ Philip A. Barach                  |   |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Philip A. Barach                      |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

ROBERT SPARANO (AND WIFE, THERESA 

SPARANPO) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION 

OF AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 5388 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Financial Properties, 

Inc., Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., Brookfreld Properties One WFC Co. LLC 

E/k/a WFP Tower A Co. L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC G.P. Corp. E/k/a WFP 

Tower A Co. GP Corp., WFP Tower B Co L.P., WFP Tower B Co. GP Corp., BFP 

Tower C Co. LLC, BFP Tower C MM LLC, WFP Tower D Co. L.P., WFP Tower D Co. 

GP Corp. and WFP Retail Co. L.P. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as and for 

their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off 

Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby 

adopt the Brookfield Parties' Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated October 16, 

2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 31 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Dated: New York, New York 

January 71 2008 

Faust, Goetz, Sche~her& Blee, LLP 

By:(winiaim J. Smith (~4137) 

the BrookfielclParties 

Two~ectQr Street; 20f~ Fld~r.j-.':l 

New York, NY 10006 

(212) 363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 31 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Exhibit
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO





18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of MRU Holdings, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 operations of the Company.




A
      signed original of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.





Date:
              September 28, 2007
            
            /s/
              Vishal GargVishal
              GargChief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 4 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 5 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 6 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 7 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 8 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 9 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 10 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 11 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 12 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 13 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 15 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 17 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 18 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 20 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 22 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 23 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 26 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 28 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 29 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 30 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 32 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 34 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 35 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 36 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 37 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-13 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 38 of 38