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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

JOSE ARREDONDO, a.k.a. Jose Guadalupe 

Arredondo, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50078 

D.C. No. 8:16-cr-00075-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Arredondo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

his guilty-plea convictions and 168-month concurrent sentences for distribution of 

methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

 

* 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

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50078 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Arredondo’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 Arredondo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se 

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dimitrius DUNN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71105.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a court of two counts of distribution of controlled substance near public housing in violation of § 195.218, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to a suspended term of ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### Ray Everett BOHLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69427.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 17, 1996.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ray Everett Bohlen appeals the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for lack of jurisdiction. The lower court found that he filed his motion outside of the ninety-day limit required under Rule 24.035(b). Bohlen alleges the date on his motion did not reflect his actual delivery date to the department of corrections. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Joseph J. Bouffard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 21, 2008 |  |                                      
|                     |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard               
|                     |  | Joseph J. Bouffard                   
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4219 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4219

 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable 
debts for overpayments received under title XVIII or XIX of the Social 
Security Act, and to except from automatic stay exclusion from program 
              participation under the Social Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

  Mr. Stark introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable 
debts for overpayments received under title XVIII or XIX of the Social 
Security Act, and to except from automatic stay exclusion from program 
              participation under the Social Security Act.

    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 ``Medicare and Medicaid Recovery Act 
of 1996''.

SEC. 2. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBTS FOR OVERPAYMENTS RECEIVED UNDER 
              MEDICARE OR MEDICAID.

    (a) In General.--Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(17) to the extent such debt is for an overpayment 
        received under title XVIII or XIX of the Social Security 
        Act.''.
    (b) Applicability Under Chapter 13.--Section 1328(a)(2) of title 
11, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or (9)'' and inserting 
``(9), or (17)''.

SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM PROGRAM PARTICIPATION NOT SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC 
              STAY.

    Section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (17), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
            ``(19) under subsection (a) of this section, of the 
        exclusion by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the 
        debtor from participation in medicare and State health programs 
        pursuant to section 1128, 1892(a)(2)(C)(ii), or 1892(a)(3)(B) 
        of the Social Security Act.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act apply with respect to cases 
commenced under title 11, United States Code, on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0221

_________________

PETER GRIGG,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

ALISON PAUL, Executive Director, and

MONTANA LEGAL SERVICES 

ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Peter Grigg, to all counsel of record,

and to the Honorable Amy Eddy, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 25 2023

01/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0221
#### Frank E. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67244.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 15, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 25, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate his sentence without granting an evidentiary hearing following the revocation of his suspended execution of sentence for violating the terms of his probation. He claims both that the plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4033 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4033

To amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as 
   the Paperwork Reduction Act, to ensure that Federal agencies give 
priority to reducing paperwork burdens on small businesses having 50 or 
                            fewer employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 1996

 Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the 
Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as 
   the Paperwork Reduction Act, to ensure that Federal agencies give 
priority to reducing paperwork burdens on small businesses having 50 or 
                            fewer employees.

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

SECTION 1. PRIORITY TO REDUCING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON CERTAIN SMALL 
              BUSINESSES.

    Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, is amended as follows:
            (1) Section 3501(1) is amended by inserting 
        ``microenterprises,'' after ``small businesses,''.
            (2) Section 3502 is amended by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end of paragraph (13)(D), by striking the 
        period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting ``; and'', 
        and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(15) the term `microenterprise' means a person--
                    ``(A) engaged in business solely in the United 
                States or its territories; and
                    ``(B) that employs 50 or fewer individuals.''.
            (3) Section 3504 is amended--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) by inserting ``, 
                especially burden affecting microenterprises'' before 
                the semicolon at the end;
                    (B) in subsection (c)(3) by inserting ``, 
                microenterprises,'' after ``individuals''; and
                    (C) in subsection (c)(5) by inserting ``, with a 
                particular emphasis on potential harmful effects on 
                microenterprises'' before the period at the end.
            (4) Section 3505(a)(2) is amended by inserting ``on 
        individuals, microenterprises, and entities most adversely 
        affected'' before the semicolon.
                                 <all>
```
YzApp International Inc: Exhibit 10.15 - Prepared by TNT Filings Inc.




  




Exhibit 10.15 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT AND
PROMISSORY NOTE 


This First Amendment
to Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (this "Amendment") is made
as of February_____, 2009, by and between Heilongjiang Shuaiyi New Energy
Development Co., Ltd., a limited liability company established and existing
under the law of the People’s Republic of China (the "Company")
and the lender signatory hereto (the "Lender"). Terms not
otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to such terms
in the Note (defined below). 


BACKGROUND 


The Company and the
Lender entered into that certain LOAN AGREEMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE, dated as of
December 8, 2008 (the "Note"), pursuant to which, among others,
the Lender agreed to lend the principal amount of RMB _________ (¥___________)
(the "Loan") to the Company. The parties hereto now desire to
amend the Note to make the Loan subordinate in right of payment to any other
debts of the Company, present and future, occurring prior to the Maturity Date.


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and of good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto,
intending to be legally bound, do hereby agree as follows: 

1. 


The following provision is hereby added to Section 3 of the Note as subsection
3(c): 

(c) 
Subordination. The Lender hereby subordinates any right to receive any
payment with respect to this Note, to the payment or provision for payment in
full of all claims of all present and future creditors of the Company arising
out of any matter occurring prior to the Maturity Date. 

2. 


This Amendment shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the People’s Republic of China without giving effect to the principles of
conflict of laws thereof. 

3. 


Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the Note shall
remain in full force and effect, and the Note, as previously amended, is in all
respects ratified and confirmed. 

4. 


This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when
executed and delivered, shall be deemed an original and all of which taken
together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

[Signature Page Follows] 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
above written date. 


	Heilongjiang Shuaiyi New Energy	 
	Development Co., Ltd.	 
	 	 
	By :                                                                                 
    	By:                                                                                
    
	Lianyun HAN	 
	Its: Legal Representative	 
	 	 
	Address:	Address:
	No. 41 Hanguang Street, Nangang District	 
	Harbin 150080, People’s Republic of China
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOYCE A. GULLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND COUNTY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-13391

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter came before the court on plaintiff Joyce A. Gulley’s motion for reconsideration

of the court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule

7.1(g)(2), no response was filed and no oral argument was heard.

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant

motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled

upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must

not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been

misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition

of the case.

Local Rule 7.1(g)(3).

In this case the court finds no palpable defect. Petitioner has merely presented the same issues

ruled upon by the court by reasonable implication. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff

Gulley’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: April 19, 2011

5:09-cv-13391-JCO-MAR Doc # 42 Filed 04/19/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 950
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

this date, April 19, 2011, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

5:09-cv-13391-JCO-MAR Doc # 42 Filed 04/19/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 951
Certification of Principal
Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 and
Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427
 
 I, Samuel
J. Alderson, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;
 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting the occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date:
      February 27, 2008
              
              /s/ Samuel
      J. AldersonSamuel
      J. Alderson
                Principal
      Financial Officer
#### Nicholas J. CURTIS, Appellant, v. Matthew WOLL, in His Official Capacity as Third Vice President of the American Federation of Labor, an Unincorporated Association, and Joseph N. Weber, in his Official Capacity as Sixth Vice President of the American Federation of Labor, an Unincorporated Association, Appellees.

No. 236.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 7, 1938.

Nicholas J. Curtis, appellant, appearing in person.

Arthur E. Reyman, of Washington, D. C., and Carol C. Johnson, of New York City, for appellees.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.