alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Unique Speller, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 645]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J), rendered May 6, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing, since his factual assertions were insufficient *(see*CPL 710.60 [1]; *People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415 [1993]), as well as being contradicted by his own grand jury testimony *(see People v Alexander,*272 AD2d 267 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 888 [2000]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, 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-K of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                     
|                      |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels                                         
|                      |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      15, 2009 | /s/ Steven M. Payne                                                       |   |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Steven      M. PaynePresident                                             |
|              |                                                                      |
| May      15, 2009 | /s/ Jerome I. Feldman                                                     |   |
|              | Jerome      I. FeldmanChairman,      Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-67-01-SM

Warren Butler

O R D E R

Defendant Butler’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 33). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

trial period. Defendant Butler shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than April 18, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 29, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00067-PB Document 34 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 10, 2007

cc: Michael R. Smith, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00067-PB Document 34 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 182

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
  Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential 
 addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
                               purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 182

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
  Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential 
 addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
River Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut 
        possesses important resource values, including wildlife, 
        ecological, and scenic values, and historic sites and a 
        cultural past important to America's heritage;
            (2) there is strong support among State and local 
        officials, area residents, and river users for a cooperative 
        wild and scenic river study of the area; and
            (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local 
        officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a 
        concerted cooperative effort to manage the river in a 
        productive and meaningful way.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

    Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(138) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The segment from its 
headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut River.''.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

    Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut, named in 
paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be completed by the Secretary 
of the Interior and the report thereon submitted to Congress not later 
than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d) 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-C Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing 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-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation 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 material instances 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 thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2019 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Montriville Graham

V.

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility, Warden

Case No. 07-fp-008

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted.

This case has been assigned number -cv- 0q -

SO ORDERED.

Date:

cc: Montriville Graham

Case 1:07-cv-00008-PB Document 3 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

 

**EF JOHNSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE**

**(in thousands, except share and per share data)**

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Three Months Ended  June 30,** | ** ** | **Six Months Ended  June 30,** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2010**                              | ** ** | **2009**                            | ** ** | **2010** | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | ** **                            | ** ** | **(as adjusted)**                   | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **(as adjusted)** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                     |       | $                                     | 283        |                                | $          | 875 |   | $ | 473 |   | $ | (731 | ) |
|                                                  |       |                                  |       |                                |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common shares – Basic           |       | 26,515,235                            |       | 26,540,418                          |       | 26,500,311 |   | 26,462,612 |   |
| Net income (loss) per share – Basic              |       | $                                     | 0.01       |                                | $          | 0.03 |   | $ | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.03 | ) |
|                                                  |       |                                  |       |                                |       |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) per share - Diluted:                |       |                                  |       |                                |       |   |   |   |   |
| Shares used in computation:                           |       |                                  |       |                                |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common shares – Basic           |       | 26,515,235                            |       | 26,540,418                          |       | 26,500,311 |   | 26,462,612 |   |
| Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock  plans |       | 15,019                                |       | 2,021                               |       | 10,214 |   | — |   |
| Weighted average restricted stock grants and units    |       | 263,899                               |       | 466,143                             |       | 275,879 |   | — |   |
| Weighted average common shares – Diluted         |       | 26,794,153                            |       | 27,008,582                          |       | 26,786,404 |   | 26,462,612 |   |
| Net income (loss) per share – Diluted            |       | $                                     | 0.01       |                                | $          | 0.03 |   | $ | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.03 | ) |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-114-PB

Andrew Innes

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for 

additional time to engage in plea negotiations. The government 

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 10, 2007 to September 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00114-PB Document 8 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 25, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

August 28, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 25, 2007

cc: Ray Raimo, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00114-PB Document 8 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30387

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MELVIN JACKSON, also known as Melvo Jackson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-189-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Jackson was convicted of conspiracy, being a felon in possession 

of a firearm, and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. United States 

v. Jackson, 662 F. App’x 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2016). On appeal, Jackson raised 

several issues, including a constitutional challenge to his sentence that was 

foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). 

See Jackson 662 F. App’x at 312, 319. We affirmed Jackson’s conviction but 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30387 Document: 00514232629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2017
No. 17-30387

2

vacated and remanded the sentence for further consideration of the application 

of a sentencing enhancement based on the severity of the injury to the victim. 

Id. at 318-20. On remand, the district court found that the sentencing 

enhancement was appropriate. Jackson does not challenge this finding.

On appeal, Jackson states that in his initial appeal he raised the issue 

that his sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on uncharged 

conduct. Jackson concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Hernandez, but 

he raises the issue again to preserve it for possible further review. Accordingly, 

Jackson’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, his 

alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-30387 Document: 00514232629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2017
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2017


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: May 16, 2018
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Energy published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 18, 2008, announcing the submission of an information request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The document contained an incorrect OMB Control Number.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen M. Binder, Director, Office of Conflict Prevention and Resolution, GC-12, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 18, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-21823, on page 54154, please make the following corrections:                    

                        On page 54154 under the heading                         **SUMMARY**                         the OMB Control Number is 1910-5118. Also on page 54154, under the heading                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                        , the OMB No. should be 1910-5118.                    

Issued in Washington, DC on September 19, 2008.

Kathleen M. Binder, 

Director, Office of Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Office of General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E8-22564 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1994...... 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.4 8.6 7.0 9.1 8.8 8.6 7.3 1995...... 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 8.8 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.0 1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2002: Q2... 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.4 7.1 5.3 7.2 6.9 6.4 5.6  Q3... 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.3 4.7 7.3 7.0 6.5 4.9  Q4... 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.2 7.2 4.2 7.1 6.7 6.2 4.8 2003: Q1... 5.6 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.2 4.8 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.2  Q2... 5.9 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.2 4.9 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.4  Q3... 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.6 4.6  Q4... 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.4 6.4 6.2 5.7 4.2 2004: Q1... 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.0  Q2... 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.7 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7  Q3... 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 5.9 5.1  Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD MCGILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-9, CA-96-481-2)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward McGill, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McGill, Nos. CR-94-9; CA-96-481-2

(E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1996). We further deny Appellant's motion to

remand the case. 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