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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 

BETTY LOUISE MADRID, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10175 

D.C. No. 

4:16-cr-02180-RM-BGM-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Betty Louise Madrid appeals her conviction for transportation of an illegal 

alien for financial gain and conspiracy to transport an illegal alien for financial 

gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and 

1324(a)(1)(B)(i). 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

SEP 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Madrid contends that the government violated her Fifth and Sixth 

Amendment rights by deporting a juvenile percipient witness, one of two 

individuals whom border patrol agents found in Madrid’s car during a checkpoint 

stop. To prevail, Madrid must demonstrate that the government acted in bad faith 

by deporting the witness, and that Madrid suffered prejudice as a result. See United 

States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 969–70 (9th Cir. 2012). The district 

court found that Madrid had not satisfied either component of that test, and its 

finding was not clearly erroneous.

Bad faith “turns on what the government knew at the time it deported the 

witness.” Id. at 970. Accordingly, “[w]hen the government doesn’t know what a 

witness will say, it doesn’t act in bad faith” by deporting her. Id. Madrid does not 

contest that the government did not interview the juvenile witness before deporting 

her, and she presents no other evidence to suggest that the government might have 

known that the juvenile witness had exculpatory information. Nor does Madrid

present evidence that the government departed from normal procedures involving

deportation of juvenile noncitizen witnesses. See United States v. Pena-Gutierrez, 

222 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). She therefore cannot demonstrate that the 

government acted in bad faith.

Madrid also fails to show prejudice. Instead, she asks that we presume 

prejudice whenever the government deports a potential percipient witness. We
3 

have not adopted such an approach, which is foreclosed by Supreme Court 

precedent. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 873 (1982) 

(defendant must show that deported witness’s testimony “would be both material 

and favorable to the defense”); United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687, 693–94 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. This morning the leader time has 
been reserved.

                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at 12 noon today, we will resume 
consideration of H.R. 956, the product liability bill. There will be no 
rollcall votes during the session today. However, under the unanimous-
consent agreement, all medical malpractice amendments to the product 
liability bill must be offered and debated today. Any votes ordered on 
those amendments will be stacked to begin at 11 a.m. on Tuesday.

                          ____________________
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2428 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Department 

of Veterans Affairs provides temporary care in the most cost effective 

manner when patients are relocated during medical facility construction 

and renovation projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2014 

Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the 

Department of Veterans Affairs provides temporary care 

in the most cost effective manner when patients are 

relocated during medical facility construction and renovation projects, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Cost 

5 of Veterans Care Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2428 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCOUNTING OF MAJOR MEDICAL FA2 CILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8104(b) of title 38, 

4 United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the 

6 following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(F) Additional costs of providing hospital 

8 care or medical services resulting from tem9 porary displacement of clinical space required 

10 by such construction, alteration, lease, or acqui11 sition.’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(7) In the case of a project that results in 

15 temporary displacement of clinical space, an analysis 

16 of any additional costs of providing hospital care or 

17 medical services resulting from such displacement, 

18 including additional costs associated with— 

19 ‘‘(A) contracting with a non-Department 

20 facility in order to furnish hospital care or med21 ical services; 

22 ‘‘(B) beneficiary travel; and 

23 ‘‘(C) the lease or purchase of a temporary 

24 or mobile medical facility.’’. 

25 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

26 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to requests for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2428 IS

1 funding of major medical facility projects and major med2 ical facility leases submitted to Congress pursuant to sec3 tion 8104(b) of such title on or after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Aug. 31Published Aug. 31, 2018
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Angelo Rosario
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look Around the Air Force, Air Force leadership provides an update on the Publication Reduction Initiative, and Airmen provide support to the Royal Air Force during exercise Typhoon Warrior. Hosted by Airman 1st Class Angelo Rosario.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- **USAF supports premier RAF exercise**
- **AF leadership provides update on the Air Force Publication Reduction Initiative**
- **Major LAF promotion board scheduled for December**raf 



F-15E 



Strike Eagle 



Around the Air Force 



Featured Videos 



AF Reports 



AirForce TV 



A1C Angelo Rosario 



Typhoon Warrior 



Publication Reduction Initiative 



ATAF
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO





18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO





SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Reliv’ International, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert L.
Montgomery, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven D. Albright,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(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/ Robert L. MontgomeryRobert
      L. MontgomeryChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      August 10, 2010/s/ Steven D. AlbrightSteven
      D. AlbrightChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      August 10, 2010





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report of Advanced Digital Information
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Peter H. van Oppen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: September 16, 2002                /s/ PETER H. VAN OPPEN
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             Peter H. van Oppen, Chairman
                                             and Chief Executive Officer
News United States Air Force
 Changes at HQ AETC focus on Force Development EffortsPublished Jan. 29, 2019
                        
                        
                        Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                **Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Lt. Gen. Steve Kwast, commander of Air Education and Training Command, announced changes to Headquarters AETC and to 2nd and 19th Numbered Air Force organizations today, in order to refocus the headquarters on force development efforts.
This reorganization allows the headquarters staff to focus on broader force development responsibilities, ensuring policy and strategy are aligned within the command and across the entire Air Force developmental enterprise.
“AETC Airmen must become learning experts,” Kwast said. “The headquarters staff will change focus and transform from basic execution to innovation; from input measures to outcomes; from a hierarchical organizational and decision-making paradigm to a flatter organizational framework where decisions emerge from a robust sharing of information and are made at the lowest possible levels of the organization.”
The notable changes at the headquarters level include the creation of the following directorates: Headquarters AETC Directorate of Intelligence, Analysis and Innovation, (A2/9); Headquarters AETC Directorate of Operations and Communications, (A3/6); and Headquarters AETC Directorate of Plans, Programs and Requirements, (A5/8).
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen W. Wilson,  approved AETC’s request to reorganize AETC, 2nd Air Force and 19th Air Force Dec. 13, 2018. The reorganization follows the Air Force chief of staff guidance to empower AETC and NAF commanders at all levels to develop the current and future Air Force required to keep the competitive advantage.
This change empowers the commanders of 2nd Air Force and 19th Air Force to lead and accomplish their operational technical and flying training missions.
The reorganization stems from comprehensive, bottom-up mission review of the major command and NAF headquarters staffs to ensure they are organized to support the evolving mission of AETC. Members of the review team examined AETC’s command and control processes and how AETC staff responds to the pace of today’s national security environment.Air Force 



CSAF 



Air Force Chief of Staff 



AETC 



AF 



Air Education and Training Command 



Numbered Air Force 



19th Air Force 



NAF 



VCSAF 



Air Force vice chief of staff 



2nd Air Force 



Gen. David L. Goldfein 



joint base 



JB San Antonio 



Gen. Stephen W. Wilson 



Air Force Chief of Staff Ge. David L. Goldfein 



Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen W. Wilson 



Headquarters AETC
#### Smith *v.*Lynes.

On appeal to the general term, from a judgment at the special term, the costs to be allowed, are those expressed in the sixth subdivision of section three hundred and seven of the code of procedure.

June 8th, 1849.

This case came before the court by way of appeal from the adjustment of costs by the clerk. There had been an appeal to the general term, from a judgment entered on verdict at the special term; and the judgment below was affirmed. The appellant claimed that the respondent was not entitled to costs, on the ground that costs were expressly excluded by the latter clause in the sixth subdivision of section 307 of the code.

*C. W. Sandford,*for the appellant.

*B. W. Bonney,*for the respondent.

By the Court.

There are two classes of appeals in our present practice, first, from *orders,*and secondly, *from, judgments.*Section 307 of the amended code, provides that, “ when allowed, costs shall be as follows”Eight classes of cases or stages of suits are then enumerated. The sixth clause of the section *734reads thus:—“ To either party on appeal, excepting to the court of appeals, before argument, fifteen dollars ; for argument, thirty dollars; but this provision shall not- apply to appeals in cases other than those mentioned in section 349.”

The 349th section, referred to, is the one providing for appeals from orders, as distinguished from judgments. Therefore, if literally carried out, this sixth clause of section 307 would deprive the successful party of all costs on an appeal to the general term, from a final judgment. This must be contrary to the intent of the legislature. There are other clauses in the code, which certainly contemplate the allowance of costs on such an peal in certain cases.

The difficulty is, that the section referred to so distinctly in the sixth clause, is pertinent; it relates to an entire class of appeals ; and it is embarrassing for a court to say that the legislature did not mean what is so plainly and unequivocally written. It is most probable that an error was made in engrossing the code, which causes the difficulty.

The question has been considered in the supreme court, by Judge Barculo, in the second, and by Judge Harris, in the third district; and both have decided that the exception made by the concluding paragraph of the sixth clause must be rejected as repugnant to other parts of the code, and the prevailing party is entitled to costs on an appeal from a judgment. *(Livingston*v. *Miller,*4 Howard’s Practice R., 42; *Wilson*v. *Allen,*ib. 54.)

Uniformity of decision on the subject, is very desirable, and we incline to conform our views to those of the judges whose decisions we have cited. We therefore advise the clerk to insert the costs of the appeal in the record of judgment. If this be wrong, it will be an error which may be examined by the court of appeals. i

Order accordingly.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T V E RN O N A L V I N L O U I S V I L L E , J r ., P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. A . W . G I BBS, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56800 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 3 0 7 0 - AG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A ndr e w J . G ui l f

or d, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F eder alpri soner V erno n A l vi n L ou i svi l l e, Jr . appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2241 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of as e c t i on 2241 

# FI LED APR22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56800 2 h ab e a s p e titio n d e n o v o an df a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le are rr o r , se e R ey no lds v. T hom as , 6 0 3 F. 3 d1 1 4 4 , 1 1 4 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. L ou i svi l l e c on t ends thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o cre di tt ow ar d h i s f eder alse nt ence for the t i m e he s erved i n st at e c ust od y bef ore he w as re l ea se d t o federa l autho ri t i es o n S e p te m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . T h is ar g u m e n t f a ils b e c au s e th e tim e L o u is v ille s p e n t in s ta te c u s to d yw a s a lr e a d yc r e d ite dto w ar dh is s ta te s e n te n c e . See 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 5 ( b ) ; A l len v. Crabtre e , 15 3 F . 3d 10 30 , 10 33 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( no t i ng that se ct i on 35 85 (b) di sa l l ow s dou bl e c re di t i ng for t i m e s erved). AF F I RME D.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE PATRICIA SCHROEDER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from Hon. Patricia Schroeder, Member of Congress:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant 
     to rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that my office has 
     received a subpoena for testimony and documents concerning 
     constituent casework. The subpoena was issued by the County 
     Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado.
       After consultation with the General Counsel, I have 
     determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent 
     with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pat Schroeder,
                                                    Congresswoman.
     

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         136,355
<SECURITIES>                                   110,013
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,089,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,336,253
<PP&E>                                      26,045,377
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,015,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,990,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,174,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        257
<COMMON>                                         1,466
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,303,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,990,649
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,943,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,144,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,057,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,137,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,412,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,412,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,412,322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           In connection with the Quarterly report of Nova Communications Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth D. Owen, Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ KENNETH D. OWEN
--------------------------------------
     Kenneth D. Owen, Chief Executive Officer
     (Authorized Officer)

Date:  August 27, 2002

                                   SIGNATURES

In accordance with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.

Date: August 27, 2002

Nova Communications Ltd.


                By:  /s/ KENNETH D. OWEN
                     --------------------------------------
                     Kenneth D. Owen, Chief Executive Officer
                     (Authorized Officer)