alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50229 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. JU AN D AV I D SEG U RA

- LO PE Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R - 496- 4 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ju an D avid Segu ra- L opez ap pea l s t h e s ixty- m on t h sentence he received af t er pl ead i n g gu i l t y t o conspir acy t o possess w i t h t h e i n t en t t o di st ribu t e m ore t h an 100 ki l ogram s of m arij u an a, i n vi ol ati on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 846. For t h e f i rst t i m e o n appe al , he c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tpl ai nl y e r r e d i n no ta w ar di ng h i m a U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2 safet y- valve redu ct i on an d i n fai l i n g t o i m pose a sentence bel ow t he s t at ut or y m i ni m um . As t he G ove r nm entcont ends, the i nst antappeal United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50229

2 i s ba r r e d b y th e w a ive r-of-ap p ea lpr ov i sioni n S eg u ra -L op ez ’ s p l ea ag ree m en t, w h ic h w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n ta r y , a n de n fo r c e a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi n son , 1 8 7 F .3 d5 1 6 , 5 1 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Po rtillo , 18 F. 3d 290, 292- 93 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 1 (b )(1)(N ). S egu ra- L opez’ s argum en tt h at th e G overnm en tbrea ch ed the pl ea ag r e e m e ntb y fail i ng t o r e que s tas af e t y va lver e duc t i o n fai l s because t he G o ve r nm e ntw as und e rno a f f i r m at iveo bli ga t i o n t o r e que s ts uc h ar e duc t i o n. In a d d itio n , h e h a dtw o cr im in a l h is t o r yp o in ts . T h u s h e w a s s ta tu to r ily i nel i gibl e t o r ec eive t he safet y valve r educ t i on. U . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2( a) ( 1) . S egur aLopez’ s c l ai m t hatthe G ov ern m entengag ed i n pro se c ut or i alm i sc onductby w i t hhol di ng unspec i f i ed i nf or m at i on r egar di ng hi s eli gibi l i t y f ors afet y valve c o n s id e r a tio n is w h o llyc o n c lu s io n a l a n dis n o t c o g n iz a b le . S ee Nich o ls v . S co tt , 6 9 F .3d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 8 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ca se ). AF F I RMED.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [DA 14-1856]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction

# SUMMARY:

                        The Enforcement Bureau published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 7, 2015, debarring Ms. Donna P. English from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”) for three years. The document contained incorrect contact information.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joy M. Ragsdale, 202-418-1697.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 7, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-00036, on page 889, in the third column, correct the                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         section to read:                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joy M. Ragsdale, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Joy Ragsdale may be contacted by telephone at (202) 418-1697 or by email at                         *Joy.Ragsdale@fcc.gov.*                         If Ms. Ragsdale is unavailable, you may contact Mr. Jeffrey J. Gee, Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 and by email at                         *Jeffrey.Gee@fcc.gov.*

Federal Communications Commission.

Jeffrey J. Gee,

Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2015-00354 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Vann Technology, LLC. a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described below: U.S. Patent 6,902,316 (Navy Case 85003): Issued June 7, 2005, entitled “NON-INVASIVE CORROSION SENSOR”.

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than January 26, 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404

Dated: December 29, 2014.

N.A. Hagerty-Ford,

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-00012 Filed 1-6-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 23-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF RACHEL DIAMOND 

RAYMOND FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF 

THE STATE OF MONTANA 

FILED 

JAN 2 it 2e23 

Bowen CZil 

C, rk of Supreme Court ositutit-tarRachel Diamond Raymond has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State 

of Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The 

Bar Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the 

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Raymond has provided the 

necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on 

motion under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Rachel Diamond Raymond may be sworn in to the practice of law in the 

State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of 

the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this Aieday ofJanuary, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

01/24/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005
.gA- zA%(4r1 

v't 

Llv,04/14te 

44 ,r7 AIL 

Justices 

2
#### Pamela C. Frawley, Formerly Known as Pamela C. Salvatore, Appellant, v Gerard P. Salvatore, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 488]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 16, 2001, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated January 3, 2008, as denied, without a hearing, that branch of her motion which was to modify the parties’ custody arrangement from joint custody with residential custody with the father to joint custody with residential custody with her.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination on that branch of the mother’s motion which was to modify the parties’ custody arrangement from joint custody with residential custody with the father to joint custody with residential custody with the mother.

The parties’ judgment of divorce provided that, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, the parties would have joint custody of their two daughters (hereinafter the subject children) with the father having residential custody. The mother moved, inter alia, to modify the parties’ custody arrangement to provide residential custody with her. The Supreme *679Court, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion without conducting a hearing. We reverse, and remit to the Supreme Court for a hearing and a new determination on that branch of the mother’s motion.

The mother met her prima facie burden of alleging a sufficient change of circumstances in the period of more than six years since the stipulation was executed, which would justify a hearing on the question of whether modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the subject children *(see Matter of Conforti v Conforti,*46 AD3d 877 [2007]). During that period, the father remarried, withdrew the subject children from school for home schooling with his new wife, separated from the new wife, and was engaged in a contentious divorce proceeding with her. Further, the subject children are now both teenagers and allegedly need additional time and counsel with their mother.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and new determination on that branch of the mother’s motion which was to modify the parties’ custody arrangement *(see Matter of Lew v Sobel,*46 AD3d 893, 894 [2007]; *DiVittorio v DiVittorio,*36 AD3d 848 [2007]). We express no opinion as to whether modification is in fact warranted or as to what the new determination should be. Fisher, J.E, Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Stephen A. Hozie, 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 American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2007-2 (the "Exchange
    Act periodic reports");

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

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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 on
    assessment 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 American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
    and by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.


     Dated:   March 27, 2008


    /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
    Signature

    Executive Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,514,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      55,584,658
<DEPRECIATION>                            (33,227,314)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,159,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     39,031,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,368,931
<SALES>                                      7,513,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,739,172
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,979,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,893,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            866,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   866,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Christopher Simmons, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 609]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Inside petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found a clear plastic bag containing a green leafy substance wrapped inside a handkerchief located in the lower right pocket of a state-issued winter jacket. The substance later tested positive for marihuana. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a controlled substance. He was found guilty of the *1289charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated because the misbehavior report failed to comply with the particularity requirements of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c). This regulation provides that a misbehavior report must set forth “the date, time and place of the offense, . . . the disciplinary rule alleged to have been violated and . . . the factual basis for the charge with enough particularity to enable the inmate to prepare a defense” *(Matter of Torres v Goord,*261 AD2d 759, 759 [1999]; *see Matter of Sepe v Goord,*1 AD3d 667, 667 [2003]; 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]). Here, the misbehavior report, which was prepared by the correction officer who tested the substance, simply stated that a substance given to him by another correction officer tested positive for marihuana. Significantly, it did not indicate that the officer who gave him the substance obtained it from petitioner’s cell nor did it provide any details as to exactly where the substance was found. To add to the confusion, the report listed the location of the incident as the “chart office.” Under these circumstances, we find that the misbehavior report failed to provide petitioner with adequate notice of the charge to enable him to prepare a defense *(see e.g. Matter of Howard v Coughlin,*190 AD2d 1090, 1091 [1993]). As this deficiency violated petitioner’s due process rights, the determination must be annulled and all references thereto expunged from his institutional record *(see e.g. Matter of Hakeem v Coombe,*233 AD2d 805, 806 [1996]).

Peters, EJ., Stein, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Dontavis Gowan

, * From the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Trial Court No. 2011

- 1805

- C2

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00292

- CR * October 17 , 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by McCall, J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 6, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

                    1.                     *Banner Corporation,*                     Walla Walla, Washington; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Starbuck Bancshares, Inc., Seattle, Washington, and thereby indirectly acquire AmericanWest Bank, Spokane, Washington.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9, 2015.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-00427 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-109177 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 2, 2007, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of MicroIslet, Inc., (which report expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to (1)
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern as discussed in Note 1, and (2) the adoption of Statement of
Financials Standards No. 123(R), SHARE-BASED PAYMENT, effective January 1,
2006) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of MicroIslet, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California

April 2, 2007