alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I hereby certify that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Wilshire Financial Services Group Inc.

|Date: November 14, 2002 | /s/   BRUCE A. WEINSTEIN
|----------------------- | ------------------------
|                        | Bruce A. Weinstein      
|                        | Executive Vice President
|                        | Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00364-WYD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

1. RAMON ACOSTA-BALLESTEROS, 

Defendant. 

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL 

A Notice of Disposition, [ECF No. 12], was filed in the above matter on November 

4, 2011. A Change of Plea hearing is set for Friday, December 9, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. 

Accordingly the trial set for November 21, 2011 is VACATED. 

Counsel for the parties shall deliver all change of plea documents 

separately to Judge Daniel’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later 

than 72 HOURS before the hearing date. If the documents are not timely submitted, 

the hearing will be VACATED. There will be no exceptions to this policy, and 

sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply.

 Dated: November 7, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Marotta, Appellant.

County Court, Westchester County,

April 2, 1957.

*Thomas F. English, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Joseph F. Gagliardi, District Attorney (Warren J. Schneider*of counsel), for respondent.

Harold T. Garrity, J.

The appeal herein results from a conviction for violation of subdivision 8 of section 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which limits the weight of certain trucks when in operation on the public highways. The problem presented, which has previously confronted the court, is the validity of a conviction where there is either failure or insufficiency of legal proof of the accuracy of the scales employed.

In the instant appeal there seems to be no question that the scales were duly tested on November 23, 1955. The alleged violation occurred on September 25, 1956 — some 10 months later. The sealer of weights and measures, when asked on cross-examination whether he could testify as to the accuracy of the scales on said later date, answered that he could not. (We accept the correction of the return noted in defendant’s memorandum as to the date.)

As we had occasion to comment in *People*v. *Brandon*(5 Misc 2d 946) the problem of accurately weighing these large trucks is rather complex and involved. No conviction lies where there has been a failure to establish the accuracy of the weighing devices to the degree required by law to establish guilt in criminal proceedings. There was here clearly such failure, particularly in view of the substantial period intervening *948between testing and the use. Nor can the burden of such proof be shifted to the defendant by requiring that he “ disprove ” the prosecution’s testimony.

The judgment of conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered. Submit order on notice.
EXHIBIT 32.2 CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



I, Jarett A. Misch, 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-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 29, 2005 (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 78o(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.



Dated: December 12, 2005



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jarett A. Misch                                    
|Jarett A. Misch                                        
|Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting
Officer



34
Case 1:11-mj-01136-MEH Document 13 Filed 09/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                   47,539
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                             9,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             (1,032)
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         60,649
<PP&E>                                                                   10,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           (3,514)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          118,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    22,741
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                     11
<OTHER-SE>                                                               95,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            118,866
<SALES>                                                                  12,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         12,383
<CGS>                                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            12,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         (337)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                            (277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                        (473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                               (473)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

 

ORDER

 

 

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The trial in this matter is currently set

to commence on January 30, 2012, and a Final Trial Preparation Conference is

currently set for January 20, 2012. (See ECF No. 20.) Currently pending before the

Court are: 

(1) Plaintiff USA’s Amended Motion for Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

15 (ECF No. 37); 

(2) Defendants Executive Recycling, Inc. (“ER”) and Brandon Richter’s Motion to

Strike Surplusage from Indictment (ECF No. 60), in which Defendant Tor Olson has

joined (ECF No. 62); 

(3) Defendant Olson’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-13 of the Indictment (ECF No.

61), in which Defendants ER and Richter have joined (ECF No. 70); 

(4) Defendant Olson’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 63); and 
2

(5) Defendant Olson’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Pretrial Motions (ECF

No. 64). The first motion listed above is now fully briefed (as of December 28, 2011). 

The second, third, fourth, and fifth motions listed above were filed on December 16,

2011, the last day in which to file pretrial motions. (See ECF No. 20.) The Government

has until January 9, 2012 to respond to those motions. (See ECF No. 22.)

With the exception of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Surplusage from Indictment,

ECF No. 60, all of Defendants’ remaining motions raise issues which require resolution

before trial can begin. This is particularly true with regard to the Government’s

Amended Motion for Deposition, ECF No. 37, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Counts 1 -13 of the Indictment, ECF No. 61. As a result, and given the nature and

complexity of the issues raised by the pending motions, in addition to the fact that trial is

scheduled for one month from today, the Court reluctantly concludes that no viable

alternative exists other than for it to vacate the current trial date and date for the Final

Trial Preparation Conference.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby VACATES the current trial

date of January 30, 2012 and the current setting of January 20, 2012 for the Final Trial

Preparation Conference. The Court will reset the trial date and date for the Final Trial

Preparation Conference once it has ruled on the referenced motions.

Dated this 30th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________ 

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40387

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MONTOYA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-920-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The retained counsel representing Jose Montoya has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montoya has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and supplemental brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* 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

December 10, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-40387 Document: 00512466944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
No. 12-40387

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40387 Document: 00512466944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
#### Alfred BROOKS v. STATE.

6 Div. 711.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

SAMEORD, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01978-LTB

EVERETT BRAKEMAN,

Applicant,

v.

J.W. WANDS, Warden FCI-Florence,

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Babcock, Senior Judge

Applicant has submitted a Notice of Appeal. Applicant previously was allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this court in this action. The court has examined the file and has

determined that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied. Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith

because applicant has not shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts

in support of the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because this appeal is not

taken in good faith.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 9th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cv-01978-LTB Document 21 Filed 12/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0706

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

N.A.,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

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

submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Michael F. McMahon, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 18 2021

08/18/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0706
NO. 07-06 -040 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y16, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DA NI EL D OM IN IQU E J AQU EZ, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 53, 032 -D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Dan iel D omini q ue J aq uezappeal s his conv ic ti on for burg lar y of a habi tati on. In on e is sue, he cont ends that the tr ial cour t er re d i n per mitt ing the Stat e to amend th e i ndi ctment on th e day

of tr ial

. The amendment cons is ted of c or re cti ng the date of a pr ior co nv ic ti on ple d for enhanc ement pu rp oses . W e aff ir m the jud g ment. As pr ev iou sl y

m enti oned, the State soug ht t o amend the i ndi ctmentto cor re ct the date of the pri or

conv ic ti on pled in the e nhanc ement pa ra g ra ph. Not ic e of it s i ntentto do2

so w as sentto appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el, and the l atter admi tted to ha v ing recei v ed i t t en day s b efore t ri al. N onethel ess , app ell ant o bje ct e d when effort w as made, on the day of tr ial , t o formal ly

amend t he c harg ing i nst ru ment. Before us , he ass erts thatthe effort fail ed to c omply

w it h ar t. 28.10 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re for th e prov is ion does not a ll ow amendment on th e day of tr ial

. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Author ity al so hol ds that w hil e pr ior co nv ic ti ons used for enha ncementpurposes must be pl ed i n s ome form, they need not be pl ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Vi llesc as v. State , 189 S.W .3d 2 90, 2 92- 93 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; Br ooks v. Sta te , 9 5 7 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 , 3 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Johns on v. State , 214 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 58 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2007, no pet .). So too are w e told not only tha t the dele tion of surplusa ge f rom a n indictm entfalls
o u ts id e th e requ ire m e n ts of art . 2 8 .1 0 bu t a lso th a t s u rp lu sa ge e n co m p a s s e s la n gua ge uness enti al to t he v ali dity of the ind ic tment. Johns on v . St ate , 214 S.W .3d at 158 . Since enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs need no t be ple d in the ind ic tment, it log ic all y foll ow s t hat t hey
ar e unes sent ial to the v ali dity of t he ins tr ument and c ompar abl e to sur plu sag e for pur poses of art . 28. 10. Id. As a resul t, we co n clu d e t h at modi fyi ng the date in the e nhanc ement parag ra ph here does not impl ic ate a rt . 28. 10 and, therefore, the t ri al cour t di d notv iol ate the t er ms of thatprov is ion

. Id. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Do not p ubl is h.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02459-BNB

GREGG PHILIP McMURTRY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDA NICHOLE BEATTY,

MARK YURKY,

CELESTE M. QUINONES,

MICKEY HECKENBACH,

MICHAEL E. ANDERSON,

JOHN M. O’DELL,

DEBORAH C. ALLEN,

BECKY R. LUCERO, and

REBECCA L. OAKES,

 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT AMENDED MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

At the time Plaintiff, Gregg Philip McMurtry, initiated the instant action, he was

incarcerated at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff

submitted to the Court a Notice of Change of Address indicating that he no longer is

incarcerated and now is residing in Denver, Colorado.

Plaintiff’s continuing obligation to pay the filing fee is to be determined, like any

nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 

See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1171 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997); see also McGore

v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612-13 (6th Cir. 1997); In re Prison Litigation Reform

Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1997); McGann v. Commissioner, Soc. Sec.

Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1996). Therefore, Plaintiff will be ordered to submit

Case 1:11-cv-02459-LTB Document 7 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
an Amended Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Alternatively, Plaintiff may elect to pay the $350.00 filing fee to pursue his

claims in this action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Plaintiff submit to

the Court an Amended Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Alternatively, Plaintiff may elect to pay the $350.00 filing fee to pursue his

claims in this action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail to Plaintiff, together with a

copy of this Order, two copies of the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 form used by nonprisoners in submitting requests to proceed

pursuant to § 1915. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to comply with the instant Order, within

thirty days of the date of the Order, the Complaint and action will be dismissed without

further notice.

DATED November 2, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02459-LTB Document 7 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 19 Filed 08/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 19 Filed 08/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 19 Filed 08/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 19 Filed 08/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 19 Filed 08/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
```
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                                
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                



No. 97-1809

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                          ANTHONY KING,

                      Defendant, Appellant.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

           [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                      Torruella, Chief Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                


     Robert B. Mann and Mann & Mitchell on brief for appellant.
     Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E.
Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, and Ira Belkin, Assistant
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





May 26, 1998



                                
                                
            Per Curiam.   Upon careful review of the briefs and
    record, we find no reason to overturn the sentence imposed by
    the district court.  
              1.   Pointing to the district court's remark that it
    had no "doubt that the Defendant now accepts responsibility,"
    defendant argues that the court found a sincere acceptance of
    responsibility and that nothing more is needed under comment
    n.4 to U.S.S.G. � 3E1.1 to warrant a reduction.  However, the
    court effectively qualified the quoted remark by noting that
    defendant had agreed to plead guilty only after his attempt to
    obstruct justice failed.  In short, we believe that the
    district court reasonably noted the delayed onset of
    defendant's sincerity and acted within its discretion in
    denying a reduction.  
              2.   The adjustment for defendant's role in the
    offense was amply supported by the uncontested description of
    his activities in initiating and executing the scheme and in
    recruiting its participants.  
              3.   We perceive no abuse of discretion in the
    district court's decision that the federal sentence should be
    only partially concurrent with the prior state sentence.
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
```