alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 JUN-30-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                                                    JAN-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                                                      MAR-31-1997  
<CASH>                                                                 27,007  
<SECURITIES>                                                                0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          11,587  
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             (515) 
<INVENTORY>                                                             1,264  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       41,596  
<PP&E>                                                                  1,619  
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            102  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         47,759  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  16,958  
<BONDS>                                                                     0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0  
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0  
<COMMON>                                                               50,157  
<OTHER-SE>                                                            (22,655)  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           47,759  
<SALES>                                                                 7,546  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       11,157  
<CGS>                                                                     564  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           1,703  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        7,527  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          (24)  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         28  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         2,183  
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              851  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     1,927  
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0  
<CHANGES>                                                                   0  
<NET-INCOME>                                                            1,332  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            0.16  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            0.16  
                                                                               

</TABLE>
#### Roy Richard DAVIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19858.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 17, 1965.

*375Roy Richard Davis, in pro. per.

Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van De Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Robt. J. Timlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal follows denial of a motion presented to the District Court under the provisions of Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. The appellant had previously pleaded guilty, with advice of counsel, to three counts of a ten count indictment charging the presentation of false claims for refund of income taxes in violation of Section 287, Title 18 U.S.C.

In his motion, the appellant alleged (1) that he was convicted as a result of an illegal arrest and therefore detained illegally, (2) that the Government failed to take appellant before the United States Commissioner for a preliminary examination and the setting of bail while he was in state custody, and (3) that he was deprived of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Federal Constitution as a result of being interviewed by agents of the United States Internal Revenue Service while in the custody of state authorities for a separate violation of state law.

The appeal has no merit. We have repeatedly held that “When a defendant voluntarily and knowingly pleads guilty at his trial this constitutes a waiver of all non jurisdictional defenses, * * * The conviction and sentence which follow a plea of guilty are based solely and entirely upon said plea and not upon any evidence which may have been improperly acquired by the prosecuting authorities.” Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 446, 7 L. Ed.2d 401, Hoffman v. United States, 327 F.2d 489, 490 (9th Cir. 1964).

Appellant was not deprived of his constitutional rights, and the order denying his motion is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31795-31796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of Biotechnology Activities; Recombinant DNA Research: 
Amended Notice of Meeting

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of consideration of a proposed action

[[Page 31796]]

under Section III-A-1 of the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving 
Recombinant DNA Molecules (NIH Guidelines).

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

SUMMARY: Notice of a discussion of a proposed action under Section III-
A-1 published on May 24, 2010 (75 FR 28811) is withdrawn. The 
discussion that was to be held at the June 16-17, 2010 meeting of the 
NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee has been deferred at the request 
of the principal investigator.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OBA by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95faf7f4d5faf1bbfbfcfdbbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28474a4968474c06464140064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
telephone at 301-496-9838, if you have questions, or require additional 
information.

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay,
Acting Director, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National 
Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-13484 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4716 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 10:06:19 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4716 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 10:06:19 Page 2 of

2
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4192-3    Filed: 10/11/19    Entered: 10/11/19 10:22:19    Page 1of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6460

GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN SIZER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-3933-WMN)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1998). Because Appellant did not demonstrate

to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies

or that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of

the action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. We

therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Four Month Report of Fedders Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the four months ending December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Sal Giordano, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ Sal Giordano, Jr.
----------------------
Sal Giordano, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 13, 2004

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


                                       28
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2022-1(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank,N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 29, 2024**
Presidential Documents

32075 

Federal Register 

Vol. 75, No. 108 

Monday, June 7, 2010 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8527 of May 28, 2010 

African-American Music Appreciation Month, 2010 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Music can tell a story, assuage our sorrows, provide blessing and redemption, 

and express a soul’s sublime and powerful beauty. It inspires us daily, 

giving voice to the human spirit. For many, including the African-American 

community, music unites individuals through a shared heritage. During African-American Music Appreciation Month, we celebrate the extraordinary 

legacy of African-American singers, composers, and musicians, as well as 

their indelible contributions to our Nation and our world. 

Throughout our history, African-American music has conveyed the hopes 

and hardships of a people who have struggled, persevered and overcome. 

Through centuries of injustice, music comforted slaves, fueled a cultural 

renaissance, and sustained a movement for equality. Today, from the shores 

of Africa and the islands of the Caribbean to the jazz clubs of New Orleans 

and the music halls of Detroit, African-American music reflects the rich 

sounds of many experiences, cultures, and locales. 

African-American musicians have created and expanded a variety of musical 

genres, synthesizing diverse artistic traditions into a distinctive soundscape. 

The soulful strains of gospel, the harmonic and improvisational innovations 

of jazz, the simple truth of the blues, the rhythms of rock and roll, and 

the urban themes of hip-hop all blend into a refrain of song and narrative 

that traces our Nation’s history. 

These quintessentially American styles of music have helped provide a 

common soundtrack for people of diverse cultures and backgrounds, and 

have joined Americans together not just on the dance floor, but also in 

our churches, in our public spaces, and in our homes. This month, we 

honor the talent and genius of African-American artists who have defined, 

shaped, and enriched our country through music, and we recommit to 

sharing their splendid gifts with our children and grandchildren. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as AfricanAmerican Music Appreciation Month. I call upon public officials, educators, 

and the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate 

activities and programs that raise awareness and foster appreciation of African-American music. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCD0

32076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth 

day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13660 

Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–W0–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCD0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
HUGO CONTRERAS

- HERNANDEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50189
D.C. No. 3:16

- cr - 00094

- AJB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

B efore: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NG U Y EN, Circuit Judges. Hugo Contreras

- Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50189

Contreras

- Hernandez contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for departures for imperfect duress under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, lesser harm under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11, and combination of circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(c). We do not review the procedural correctness of a district court’ s decision not to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Vasquez

- Cruz , 692 F.3d 1001, 1005

- 08 (9th Cir. 2012). Instead , we review the
ultimate sentence for substantive reasonableness. Id

. at 1008

. The low

- end
sentence is substantiv ely reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Contreras

- Hernandez’ s criminal
hist ory, his prior illegal reentry conviction , and his failure to be deter red by the

sentence for that conviction

. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Moreover, contrary to Contreras

- Hernandez’s contention , the record reflect s that
the distric t court considered his departure requests and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice rescinds the Notice of Intent for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement that was issued on June 11, 2008, for a proposed roadway improvement project in Prince George's County, Maryland.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Jeanette Mar, Environmental Program Manager, FHWA, DelMar Division, 10 S. Howard Street, Suite 2450, Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone: (410) 779-7152, e-mail address                         *Jeanette.Mar@dot.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FHWA, in cooperation with the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland Department of the Environment, and University of Maryland, is rescinding the NOI to prepare an EIS for roadway improvements which would address mobility and safety for travelers to and from the University of Maryland (UM) Campus from I-95/I-495 and points north, while providing enhanced access                           ( print page 31510)                        to the university. The NOI is being rescinded because the project is no longer funded for study.                

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulation implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

Issued on: May 27, 2010.

Jeanette Mar,

Environmental Program Manager.

[FR Doc. 2010-13295 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350Certification**

** **

In connection with thisannual report of ML APM Global Commodity FuturesAccess LLC, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2008 |                  |
|---------------------------|-----------------------|
|                      |                  |
| By                        | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra  E. Kocsis         |                  |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |                  |
|                           |                       |  |  |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

ORDER AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 

 Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Bill Robins III, Esq. (SBN 296101) 

Robert T. Bryson, Esq. (SBN 156953) 

Rex Grady, Esq. (SBN 232236) 

ROBINS CLOUD LLP 

808 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 

Santa Monica, California 90401 

Telephone: (310) 929-4200 

Facsimile: (310) 566-5900 

Attorneys for Creditor, Cherish Cram 

Matthew W. Grimshaw, Esq. (SBN 210424) 

GRIMSHAW LAW GROUP, P.C.

26 Executive Park, Ste. 250 

Irvine, California 92614 

Telephone: (949) 734-0187 

Facsimile: (208) 391-7860 

Counsel for Robins Cloud LLP 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 and 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY 

 Debtors 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered) 

ORDER AUTHORIZING 

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 

Affects: 

 PG&E Corporation 

 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

 Both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead 

Case, No. 19-30088 (DM). 

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Signed and Filed: October 12, 2022

Entered on Docket 

October 12, 2022

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13064 Filed: 10/12/22 Entered: 10/12/22 15:50:37 Page 1

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 

ORDER AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 

 Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

ORDER PERMITTING THE ROBINS CLOUD FIRM TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL TO CHERISH CRAM 

Upon consideration of the motion (the “Motion”) of Robins Cloud LLP (“Firm”) to 

withdraw as counsel to Cherish Cram pursuant to Rule 11-5 (a); and adequate notice of the Motion 

having been given; and it appearing that no other or further notice is necessary; and the Court 

having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein; and the Court having 

determined that the legal and factual grounds set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the 

relief requested in the Motion; and after due deliberation; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED. 

2. The Firm is permitted to withdraw as counsel to Cherish Cram (“Creditor”).1

3. The Firm shall continue to forward documents regarding Claim No. 28309 to 

Creditor until Creditor appears in this matter (a) through new counsel or (b) in pro per. 

*** END OF ORDER *** 

1

 The Grimshaw Law Group, P.C. is not counsel to Creditor. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13064 Filed: 10/12/22 Entered: 10/12/22 15:50:37 Page 2

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

COURT SERVICE LIST 

Cherish Cram 

P.O. Box 5181 

Oroville, CA 95966 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13064 Filed: 10/12/22 Entered: 10/12/22 15:50:37 Page 3

of 3