alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LOREN MICHELLE TOELLE, a.k.a. Loren 

Bell, a.k.a. Christmas, a.k.a. Loren Giles, 

a.k.a. Momma, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30101 

D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00019-BLW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Loren Michelle Toelle appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges her guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 212-month sentences for 

conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

 

* 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

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30101 

§§ 841(a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1956(h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Toelle’s counsel 

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Toelle the opportunity to file a 

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has 

been filed. 

Toelle waived her right to appeal her conviction 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). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 26905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for the Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending April 27, 2001

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period, DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: OST-2001-9558.
    Date Filed: April 25, 2001.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 16, 2001.
    Description: Application of DaimlerChrysler Aviation GmbH pursuant 
to 49 U.S.C. Section 41302, Subpart B and Part 211, requesting issuance 
of a foreign air carrier permit, authorizing it to provide charter 
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail; (1) between 
points in the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States; and, 
(2) between points in the United States and points in third countries 
as authorized by and in accordance with the provisions of Part 212, and 
the Air Transport Agreement between the Governments of the United 
States and the Federal Republic of Germany.

    Docket Number: OST-2001-9566.
    Date Filed: April 26, 2001.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 17, 2001.
    Description: Application of Cherokee Air, Ltd. pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. Section 41301 and Subpart Q, requesting renewal of its foreign 
air carrier permit authority, authorizing it to engage in more than 10 
on-demand charter flights each month from Marsh Harbour, Abaco, 
Commonwealth of the Bahamas, to the United States.

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 01-12112 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
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 Spindle, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Clark, acting in the capacity as the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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











/s/ William Clark


William Clark


Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2012














/s/ William Clark


William Clark


Chief Financial Officer


May 15, 2012
#### DANTE BOND *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Aaron J. Romano,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Mitchell S. Brody,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 2, 2005

The petitioner Dante Bond’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 50 (AC 24633), is denied.
Exhibit 13.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Oxford Investments Holdings Inc., a company organized under the laws ofunder the laws of Ontario, Canada (the “Company”), for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 1.

the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.


By:    /S/    Michael Donaghy
 Michael Donaghy
 Chief Executive Officer





Date: November 21, 2011
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 12 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 6 of 6
Richard S. Mills, Esq. (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson, Esq. (JPC-9391)

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE 

LITIGATION

21 MC 102 (AKH)

JULIA NARVAEZ,

 Plaintiff, -against- 100 CHURCH, LLC, ET AL., 

 Defendants.

INDEX NO.: 07-CV-05304 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMBIENT 

GROUP, INC. S ANSWER

TO MASTER COMPLAINT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., by its attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, as and for its Response to the allegations set forth 

in the Amended Complaint by Adoption (Amended Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master

Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby adopts its Answer to Master Complaint 

dated August 2, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In Re World Trade Center Lower

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, the defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., demands judgment dismissing

the above-captioned action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

May 13, 2008 

Yours etc., 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc. 

By:_ s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483.9490

TO: Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

(212) 267.3700

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

(212) 553.9206

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 848.5600

Thomas A. Egan, Esq.

Fleming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006-1404

(212) 412.9500

Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 13

th day of May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER BY DEFENDANT AMBIENT GROUP, INC., 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which sends notification to 

appearing parties.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

By: s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-9 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 10 of 10
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Thomas Eugene BARNES, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant.

No. 35,686.

NCM 77-1785.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

April 9, 1979.

For Appellant: *Lieutenant Vance J. Bettis,*JAGC, USNR (on brief).

For Appellee: *Commander T. C. Watson, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, *Major D. A. Higley,*USMC (on brief); *Lieutenant Commander N. P. DeCarlo,*JAGC, USN.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review to determine whether corrective action as to the sentence is required because the military judge failed to advise appellant of his right to remain silent, as provided by paragraph *53h,*Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition).

The record of trial reflects that the judge informed appellant of his right to present sworn testimony or an unsworn statement, but he did not specifically advise appellant of the right to remain silent. Trial defense counsel submitted an unsworn statement on behalf of his client. Appellant now claims that *United States v. Hawkins,*2 M.J. 23 (C.M.A.1976), requires corrective action. We disagree.

In *Hawkins,*the trial judge did not advise the accused of any of his allocution rights, and the accused made no statement during the sentencing phase of his trial. We concluded the accused was prejudiced by the trial judge’s omission. Here, after appellant was advised of his right to testify under oath or present an unsworn statement, defense counsel submitted appellant’s unsworn statement. Appellant does not now claim that this statement was materially deficient or otherwise detrimental to his cause or that he would have benefited more by exercising his right to remain silent. Under these circumstances, the United States Navy Court of Military Review found no prejudice and neither do we.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.
#### Cook *v.*Kuhn.

1. Corporation4: *Power of Attorney.^*A resolution recorded at length on the journal of the proceedings of a corporation, authorizing a • party to nego- ' ■ ■ tiate a loan for it,’ and execute a 'mortgage to, secure the same, is sufficient authority in that behalf. , ■ • -

2. --: *Avoiding Conveyance.*A corporation which has enjoyed the fruits of a loan, which it has,, authorized to be made, cannot ayoid'the security which its officer has given, until it has done equity by repaying the money loaned.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage, filed in the District Court for Douglas county, by Cook and others,' against the Florence Land Company and Kuhn. The mortgage was' made on the 13th of June, 1859, by the company to the plaintiff, to secure $1,800.' It was executed by Parker, as •'attorney, in fact, of.the company... .His authority to execute: such an instrument was conferred by a' resolution of the company, passed on the 31st day of August, 1858, which was in these words :

“On motion of Mr. Officer, the following.resolution was passed : *Resolved,*That Jam.es M. Parker, Esq., be authorized to sell the eighty-six shares of stock now held by the company, or such portion of them as he can dispose of at a price not less than one hundred dollars per share, and that he be authorized to borrow at as low a rate as possible, not to exceed twenty per cent, at and for a period not to exceed one or more than two years, an additional amount which, with the proceeds of the sale of said shares of stocks, shall not exceed eighteen thousand dollars ; that to aid him in affecting this loan he be fully empowered to pledge or mortgage all the real estate and other property of this company, and that to facilitate the general objects of this trust he be authorized to visit the principal eastern cities of our country.”

Parker went east on this business, but was unsuccess*473ful in raising funds, and returned in December. - On the 9 th of June, he settled his account for the expenses of his trip. Two witnesses testified that they understood that his authority under the resolution ceased at this time.

Kuhn held a judgment against the, company, and was impleaded with it as a defendant, and he alone defended. A decree was rendered according to the prayer of the bill, and Kuhn appealed to this court.

*Redick &*Briggs, for appellant.

*G. B.*Lake, contra.

The court,

by Kellogg, Ch. J.,

held that the resolution recorded on the journal was sufficient to authorize Parker to execute the mortgage. The statute of frauds does not require the'authority of the agent to be signed by the principal. Besides, the proof shows that the company had the benefit of the loan, and until it repays it, it cannot avoid the security. He who seeks equity must do equity.

Decree affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 183 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 183

To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the 
 area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

 Mr. Keating introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the 
 area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES INTEREST IN CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS.

    The Congress finds that the United States did not acquire any 
right, title, or interest in or to submerged lands in Nantucket Sound 
or the waters above such submerged lands as a result of the taking 
described in United States v. 3,000 Acres of Land, Misc. Civil Action 
No. 6340 (D. Mass., dated June 1, 1944).
                                 <all>
```
Cerium Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 CERIUM PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS CERIUM PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of October 25, 2005, between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“AMD”), and Spansion LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Spansion”). 
  
 THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 
  

	1.	Sale and Purchase. Spansion agrees to buy, and AMD agrees to sell, 1,000 units (the “Units”) of membership interests of Cerium Laboratories LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Cerium”), at a purchase price of $335.453 per Unit (the “Purchase Price”). AMD represents and warrants that the Units are all of the issued and outstanding Units of
Cerium. 

  

	2.	Purchase Price. In consideration for the sale, conveyance, transfer, assignment and delivery to Spansion of the Units, Spansion will issue to AMD a promissory note in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Promissory Note”), with a principal outstanding amount equal to the aggregate Purchase Price. 

  

	3.	Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the executors, administrators, heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto. 

  

	4.	Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California, as applied to agreements among California residents
entered into and wholly to be performed within the state of California (without reference to any choice or conflicts of laws rules or principles that would require the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction). 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
day and year first above written. 
  

			
	ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Harry Wolin


	 	 	Harry Wolin
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	
	SPANSION LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven Geiser


	 	 	Steven Geiser
	Title:	 	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12382]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

May 10, 2001.
    The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has submitted the following 
public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the submission by calling the 
Acting OTS Clearance Officer listed. Send comments regarding this 
information collection to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Acting OTS 
Clearance Officer, Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's 
Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20552, FAX Number (202) 906-6518, or e-mail to: 
[email protected].

DATES: Submit written comments on or before June 15, 2001.
    OMB Number: 1550-0062.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Title: Minimum Security Devices and Procedures.
    Description: The Bank Protection Act and OTS implementing 
regulations require thrifts to establish security devices and 
procedures. Written security programs allow OTS to evaluate whether 
thrifts have adopted policies and procedures to ensure compliance with 
the law and regulations. FDIC, OCC, and FRB have substantially similar 
regulations.
    Respondents: Savings and Loan Associations and Savings Banks.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,068.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 2.
    Frequency of Response: 1 per year.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 2,136.
    Acting Clearance Officer: Sally W. Watts, (202) 906-7380, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Deborah Dakin,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations & Legislation Division.
[FR Doc. 01-12382 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
```
153 So. 423

#### SCHWAB v. POWERS et al.

6 Div. 377.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 8, 1934.

Murphy, Hanna, AVoodall & Lindbergh and Rossie Rogers, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Taylor & Higgins, of Birmingham, for appellees.

*206BOULDIN, Justice.

A conveyance of lands from parent to child on a recited consideration of $1 in hand paid, the receipt whereof is acknowledged, and the further consideration of love and affection, is construed as a voluntary conveyance, supported 'by a *good,*rather than a *valuable,*consideration. It is, therefore, void on its face against existing creditors of the grantor. On a bill filed by an existing creditor of the grantor to set aside such conveyance and subject the lands to the payment of his debt, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove a valuable consideration, such as an indebtedness owing by the grantor to the grantee.

This has been the long-settled law in Alabama, and we are not now disposed to review or bring in question the groun,ds on which such rule is rested. Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 41 Am. Rep. 756; London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works, 197 Ala. 16, 72 So. 359; Murphy, Trustee, etc., v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 16 Ala. 90; Felder v. Harper, 12 Ala. 612; Potter & Son v. Gracie, 58 Ala. 303, 29 Am. Rep. 748; York et al. v. Leverett, 159 Ala. 529, 48 So. 684; Folmar et al. v. Lehman-Durr Co., 147 Ala. 472, 41 So. 750; Gunn v. Hardy et al., 130 Ala. 642, 31 So. 443; Gilliland v. Plawkins, 216 Ala. 97, 112 So. 454; 27 C. J. page 528.

 The status of an existing creditor is determined by the date the debt is incurred, not the date of maturity. We do not construe the trial court’s opinion as opposed to this elementary rule. But, in considering the evidence offered over the objection of complainant touching an indebtedness due from grantor to grantee as the consideration for the deed, and in basing his decree on the fact that no actual fraud was proven, there was error to reverse. Code, § 6565.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
# fcmdata0305
Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3