alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DMITRY BRON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-96-176, CA-98-1123-2)

Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: November 17, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dmitry Bron, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s opinion order is marked as

“filed” on July 15, 1999, the district court’s records show that it

was entered on the docket sheet on July 16, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Dmitry Bron seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and

opinion order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bron, Nos.

CR-96-176; CA-98-1123-2 (E.D. Va July 16, 1999).* We grant Bron’s

motion to file an oversized brief. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Teresa BUCHANAN, Petitioner, v. F. King ALEXANDER, et al.

No. 19-274.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 21, 2019.

Motion of National Coalition Against Censorship, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
| (logo)  **ncb**  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011  Crystal  Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

BANK 2018-BNK10, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2018-BNK10 (the “Trust”)

 

I, Karyn Mann, on behalf ofNational Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer (the “CertifyingServicer”), certify to Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. andits officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent thatthey will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.        I (or Servicing Officers under mysupervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during thepreceding calendar year between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date:February 4, 2019

 

 

NATIONALCOOPERATIVE BANK, N.A.,

asNCB Special Servicer

By:/s/ Karyn Mann

Name:Karyn Mann

Title:Senior Vice President
Gregory BARTUNEK, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6880

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent




To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Variable Account Funds:
We consent to the incorporation by reference, with respect
to the portfolios listed below for the Smith Barney Variable
Account Funds (the Funds), in this Prospectus and Statement
of Additional Information, of our report dated February 11,
2000, on the statement of assets and liabilities as of
December 31, 1999 and the related statement of operations
for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net
assets for each of the years in the two-year period then
ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in
the five-year period then ended.  These financial statements
and financial highlights and our report thereon are included
in the Annual Report of the Funds as filed on Form N-30D.
We also consent to the references to our firm under the
headings "Financial Highlights" in the  Prospectus and
"Independent Auditors" in the Statement of Additional
Information.

Portfolio
Income and Growth Portfolio
U.S. Government/High Quality Securities Portfolio
Reserve Account Portfolio


KPMG
LLP
New York, New York
April 25, 2000
Page
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1253 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1253

To prohibit foreign assistance to Pakistan until the tuition assistance 
         program of the Department of Defense is fully funded.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2013

 Mr. Poe of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit foreign assistance to Pakistan until the tuition assistance 
         program of the Department of Defense is fully funded.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sequester Pakistan Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no foreign assistance 
may be provided to Pakistan until expenditures for the military tuition 
assistance program under sections 1784a and 2007 of title 10, United 
States Code, for fiscal year 2013 are at least equal to expenditures 
for such tuition assistance for fiscal year 2012.
                                 <all>
```
Adrian APODACA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5956

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

*433Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance
is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 11, 2018 (the “Agreement”)
and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-1 (the
“Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery
of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection
therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during
the preceding period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any
such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |                                         | 
|------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | 
|                                     |                                         | 
|By:                                  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       | 
|                                     | Connie Coffey                           | 
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate     | 
|                                     | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Energy Holdings International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Adair, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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 the best of our knowledge:





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





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





Date: November 12, 2010

/s/    Jalal AlghaniJalal AlghaniChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                   TO ACCOMPANY FORM N-SAR
                            ____

To the Trustees of Travelers Series Trust:

  In planning and performing our audits of the financial
statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to
as financial statements) of the Funds of Travelers Series
Trust: Equity Income Portfolio and Large Cap Portfolio for
the year ended December 31, 2002 we considered their
internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR,  not to provide assurance on internal control.

  The management of the Trust is responsible for
establishing and maintaining internal control.  In
fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and
related costs of controls. Generally, controls that are
relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's objective of
preparing financial statements for external purposes that
are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.  Those controls include the
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use
or disposition.

  Because of inherent limitations in internal control,
misstatements due to errors or fraud may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods is subject to the risk that it may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that
the effectiveness of the design and operation may
deteriorate.

  Our consideration of internal control would not
necessarily disclose all matters in internal control that
might be material weaknesses under standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of any specific internal control component does
not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements due to errors or fraud in amounts that would
be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period
by employees in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls over
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2002.

  This report is intended solely for the information and use
of management and the Trustees of the Trust and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
February 12, 2
De'Angelo WILSON, Petitioner v. Marilyn RUSSELL, et al.

No. 18-8906

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-01108-CR

Style: Alan Nelson Crotts

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: February 21, 2017

Type of motion: Motion to Transfer Venue

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

To the extent that appellant’s February 21, 2017 motion requests transfer of his appeal to the Fourteenth

Court of Appeals, it is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: March 21, 2017
Jean-Gespere PIERRE, Petitioner, v. ALLIANCE SECURITY SERVICES, et al.

No. 18-9099

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT  99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Dr. Ramon Harel, Chief Executive Officer of Scanvec-Amiable,
Ltd.  (the "Company"), and Gerald J. Kochanski, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.       The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
         December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), to which this Certification
         is attached as Exhibit 99.1, fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
         as amended; and

2.       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
         end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
         operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
         Report.


                  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.

Dated: March 31, 2003                             /s/ DR. RAMON HAREL
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


                                                  /s/ GERALD J. KOCHANSKI
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Fernando Gabriel IRAZU, Petitioner, v. MARGARITA O.

No. 18-1376

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied. Petition *81for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00206

- CR

Joel ALEJANDREZ
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- CR

- 101 Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellant ’s brief wa s due on December 23, 2019

. Sixteen days after the due date
, Appellant filed a thirty

- nine

- page motion requesting a five

- month extension of time to file the brief. To justify the request, court

- appointed counsel cited reasons that are common for an active criminal defense practice. We granted the motion in part with this notice: We caution Appellant that the reasons given for a five

- month extension do not justify s uch a delay, and any further request for an extension of time to file the brief will be strongly disfavored.
Despite this express caution, on February 21, 2020, Appellant filed a forty

- five

- page motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief un til April 17, 2020. The motion does not cite extraordinary circumstances to justify such a delay, it merely recites reasons that are
common to an active criminal defense practice. Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED IN PART.
We ORDER court

- appointed counsel Joseph A. Connors III to file Appellant’s brief in this court not later than March 23, 2020. If Joseph A. Connors III fails to file the brie f as ordered, we will immediately abate this appeal and remand it to the trial court for an abandonment hearing without further notice

. SeeT EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b); Samaniego v. State , 952 S.W.2d 50, 52

– 53 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio

1997, no pet.).
We will order the trial court to ensure that Joseph A. Connors III personally appears at the hearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(3). We warn counsel that, to protect Appellant’s rights, this court may “initiat[e] contempt proceedings against [A]ppellant’s couns el.” See i d. R. 38.8(b)(4).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
Order entered March 23, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01186 - CR KEITH ALLEN FOSTER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 366 - 80380 - 2014



### O RDER Appellant’s March 19, 2015 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED . The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to April 20, 2015

. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40353

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANGEL GARCIA-LEMUS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-983-1

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant, Juan Angel Garcia-Lemus (“Garcia-Lemus”) pled guilty to

being an alien found in the United States after deportation and having been

convicted of a felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He was represented by a

Federal Public Defender and was sentenced to a term of 24 months

imprisonment followed by a three year supervised release term. He made no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 28, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 12-40353 Document: 00512126329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2013
No. 12-40353

objection to the sentence in the trial court. On appeal, he challenges only the

term of supervised release.

We review his appeal under the plain error standard. Fed. R. Crim.

Pro. 52(b); United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir.

1998). His issues, centered on the proposition that imposing supervised release

on a deportable alien constitutes an upward departure, are now foreclosed by 

this court's recent decision in United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d

324, 329 (5th Cir. 2012). The court committed no error, much less plain error,

in failing to treat the supervised release term as an upward departure in light

of the new guideline § 5D1.1(c) (stating that a term of supervised release should

not “ordinarily” be imposed on a removable alien). Id. The final sentence,

imposed within the guidelines range, is presumptively reasonable. 

There remains only the question whether the district court’s failure to

explain reasons for imposing supervised release merits the relief of resentencing

under the plain error standard. We hold it does not. The sentencing hearing

here was perfunctory, punctuated mainly by the government’s reminder that

Garcia-Lemus has a criminal record including 11 prior convictions and 2 prior

illegal reentries at times when he was already serving supervised release terms. 

Garcia-Lemus sought mercy as to the term of imprisonment only. Garcia-Lemus

make no attempt to demonstrate why this technical omission, if error at all,

affected his substantial rights or, if left uncorrected, would seriously affect the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Puckett v. United

States, 556 US 129, 135 (2009). No plain error is shown.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-40353 Document: 00512126329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2013
# Official Journal L 12/14 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 12 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4814 January 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 12

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4814 January 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.