alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11041 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SAMUEL CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-74-1

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel Castillo appeals the 151-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess with the inten t t o distribute methamphetamine, in vio l a tion of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Specifically, he challenges th e di s tri ct court’s refusal to award him a three-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Castillo asserts that he timely pleaded guilty and that, although he moved to withdraw the plea, the mot i o n w a s based on bad advice from fellow inmates. He states that he U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 29, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11041 Document: 00512067836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2012No. 11-11041

subsequ e n tly apologized and sought to rectify the error during debriefing and that he was therefore entitled to the reduction. The district court’s denial of a sentencing reduction for a c c e ptance of responsibility was not “without foundation.” Un i t ed States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008). Castillo moved to withdraw his plea based on his alleged confusion over the type of drug involved in hi s o f f e n se, which confusion the district court found to be incredible, and which credibility finding Castillo has never contested. Because Castillo falsely denied knowing that his offense involved methamphetamine in an attempt to reduce his culpability, he acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.3); Unit e d S t a t e s v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza , 407 F.3d 74 2 , 753 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-11041 Document: 00512067836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2012
Lorenzo Micquell LATIMER, petitioner, v. Jeff MACOMBER, Warden.

No. 18-6307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 99.2


Certification of Vice-Chairman and President

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Century  Casinos,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and

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





Date: May 9, 2003

/s/ Peter Hoetzinger
-----------------
Peter Hoetzinger
Vice-Chairman and President
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR AUGUSTO CISNEROSVALDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72332

Agency No. A027-551-191

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Cesar Augusto Cisneros-Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72332

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because

Cisneros-Valdez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured

at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject CisnerosValdez’s contention that the agency did not consider the State Department country

report as he has not overcome the presumption that it considered this evidence. 

See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,

Cisneros-Valdez’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21


                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT(1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                           State of Incorporation             Doing Business As
------------------                           ----------------------             -----------------
<S>                                          <C>                                <C>

Northern Oklahoma Wireless Cable, Inc.(2)    Oklahoma                           Heartland
Heartland Wireless Portsmouth, L.L.C.(3)     Texas                              Heartland
CS Wireless Systems, Inc.(4)                 Delaware                           CS Wireless
Wireless One, Inc.(5)                        Delaware                           Wireless One
</TABLE>

-------------
(1)  The names of consolidated wholly-owned subsidiaries in the wireless cable
     television service business (31 of which operate in the United States and
     none of which operate in foreign jurisdictions) have been omitted.

(2)  The Registrant owns 85% of the outstanding common stock and 21.4% of the
     outstanding preferred stock.

(3)  The Registrant owns 80% of the outstanding membership interests.

(4)  The Registrant owns approximately 36% of the outstanding common stock.

(5)  The Registrant owns approximately 20% of the outstanding common stock.
2023-05-22 Video - service of Moates.MOV

To download the video, use this link: 

https://hallrender.sharefile.com/d-s6b90cd5502394dcdb4518df7393720d8

Case 4:23-cv-00194-ALM Document 42-5 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 351
Joseph RACHAL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-574.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Michael ISHEE, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 18-522.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.
** EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Robert A. Bruggeworth, President and Chief Executive Officer of RF MicroDevices, Inc. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

(1)        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the fiscal quarter ended October 3, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/Robert A. Bruggeworth                               Robert A. Bruggeworth    President and Chief Executive Officer    November 12, 2009

 

** **

** **

** **

 

 

----

 

** **
Simpson JUAN, petitioner, v. JNESO DISTRICT COUNCIL 1, et al.

No. 18-521.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
People's Credit Card Master Trust

      Independent Accountants' Report on Management's Assertion Concerning
                  People's Bank's Compliance with Article IV,
               Section 4.2 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

                 
                        Independent Accountants' Report

People's Bank
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

Bankers Trust Company
Four Albany Street
New York, New York 10006


We have examined the assertion made by the management of People's Bank
("People's") in the accompanying report, entitled Management Report
on People's Bank's Compliance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Pooling and 
Servicing Agreement that, as of December 31, 1998, People's was in compliance
with the provisions set forth in Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Amended and
Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated March 18, 1997 (as heretofore 
amended, supplemented or otherwise modified), including the applicable 
supplements dated March 1, 1995, July 1, 1996, March 18, 1997, September 1, 
1997 and March 1, 1998 (collectively, the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") 
between Bankers Trust Company, as trustee, and People's as servicer.  
Management is responsible for People's compliance with those requirements.  
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about 
People's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about People's compliance with the
aforementioned provisions and performing such other procedures as we 
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination 
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on People's compliance with those provisions.

In our opinion, management's assertion that People's was in compliance with
the aforementioned provisions of Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement as of December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all
material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP
March 18, 1999
Steven CIOTTA, petitioner, v. K. HOLLAND, Warden.

No. 17-9041.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/05/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      539,262
COMMITMENTS
  44,602   28,133  149,730  324,395  344,705  518,727  522,568   20,535   16,694

CHANGES FROM 05/29/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     26,794)
   6,309  -13,139   19,910      931   19,167   27,150   25,937     -355      857

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.3      5.2     27.8     60.2     63.9     96.2     96.9      3.8      3.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      132)
      30       26       50       66       64      127      115
```

----

Updated June 8, 2012
Opherro G. JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6112.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

TOWNHOMES OF HERITAGE 

SQUARE HOMEOWNER’S 

ASSOCIATION

v. 

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00504-

SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 14, 2024, the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #19), was entered containing proposed findings of fact and 

recommendation that Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. #5) be 

granted and that Plaintiff be precluded from recovering attorney’s fees incurred after 

June 23, 2023, in the instant lawsuit.

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no 

timely objections being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and 

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Case 4:23-cv-00504-SDJ-AGD Document 20 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2204
2

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Attorney’s 

Fees (Dkt. #5) is GRANTED and Plaintiff is precluded from recovering attorney’s 

fees incurred after June 23, 2023, in the instant lawsuit.

Case 4:23-cv-00504-SDJ-AGD Document 20 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2205
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 the Quarterly Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, dated the date
of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Timothy L. Smith, the President and the
Chief Executive 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:

         1.  The Report 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:               November 8, 2002        /s/ Timothy L. Smith
                                            ----------------------------
                                          Timothy L. Smith
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER M. BROWN §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv214

UNKNOWN HAWKINS, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Christopher M. Brown, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex located

in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled action. 

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States

Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders

of this court. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing this action without prejudice. 

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. A copy of the report and recommendation was mailed to plaintiff at the address

provided to the court. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge have been filed.

O R D E R

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are

correct and the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A separate 

Case 1:23-cv-00214-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 13
final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s

recommendations.

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 19th day of September, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00214-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 14
[ARTICLE] 9
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1998
[CASH]                                       2,427,855
[INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS]                       1,898,619
[FED-FUNDS-SOLD]                                     0
[TRADING-ASSETS]                                     0
[INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE]                 23,506,508
[INVESTMENTS-CARRYING]                       4,645,407
[INVESTMENTS-MARKET]                         4,796,884
[LOANS]                                    119,083,215
[ALLOWANCE]                                  1,295,222
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                             155,947,058
[DEPOSITS]                                 109,410,436
[SHORT-TERM]                                 1,000,000
[LIABILITIES-OTHER]                          1,355,832
[LONG-TERM]                                 20,068,905
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                    17,646,790
[OTHER-SE]                                   6,465,095
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]             155,947,058
[INTEREST-LOAN]                              9,175,090
[INTEREST-INVEST]                            2,118,728
[INTEREST-OTHER]                               150,030
[INTEREST-TOTAL]                            11,443,848
[INTEREST-DEPOSIT]                           5,150,691
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                           6,211,479
[INTEREST-INCOME-NET]                        5,232,369
[LOAN-LOSSES]                                  783,000
[SECURITIES-GAINS]                              79,403
[EXPENSE-OTHER]                              3,660,200
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              1,584,463
[INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY]                   1,586,463
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 1,064,463
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .69
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .67
[YIELD-ACTUAL]                                    7.56
[LOANS-NON]                                    533,000
[LOANS-PAST]                                   804,000
[LOANS-TROUBLED]                                     0
[LOANS-PROBLEM]                              5,531,000
[ALLOWANCE-OPEN]                               706,487
[CHARGE-OFFS]                                  326,382
[RECOVERIES]                                   132,108
[ALLOWANCE-CLOSE]                            1,295,222
[ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC]                         1,295,222
[ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN]                                  0
[ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED]                         21,000
</TABLE>
Ellis KEYES, petitioner, v. Edison G. BANKS, II.

No. 18-379.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
Ivan RIVERA-SOLIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6266.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**435 TP 15-01811**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DEATRICK MARSHALL, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M. Mohun, A.J.], entered October 27, 2015) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the amended petition is dismissed.

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
SCPW-19-0000622 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

_________________________________________________________________

HONOLULU CIVIL BEAT INC., Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE JEFFREY P. CRABTREE, Circuit Court Judge of the First Circuit, State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge, and STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO), exclusive representative for Bargaining Unit 12, Police; and

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 18-1-0823-05) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Honolulu Civil Beat Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on September 5, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that an appeal is pending in CAAP-19- 0000450. Petitioner may seek relief through the appellate process, as appropriate. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000622 25-SEP-2019 02:00 PMmandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 25, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
David KAVANDI, petitioner, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al.

No. 18-6003.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Kenneth Ray BORDERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6764.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Philomene MANTEPAN, petitioner, v. Kenneth DEROSE, et al.

No. 17-8841.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.