alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### REN JUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73358.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

Before: GRABER, GOULD and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ren Jun Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion because he did not satisfy any of the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance was not “obvious and undisputed *529on the face of the record.” *Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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-QSB of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, 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, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 7, 2007 
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 7, 2007 





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50404

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CHARLOTTE DESIREE WATERS, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1245-1 

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charlotte Desiree 

Waters has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

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

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Waters has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50404 Document: 00513809851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 16-50404

2 

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.

 Case: 16-50404 Document: 00513809851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, PETER W. CURRIE, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: March 18, 2005   /s/ PETER W. CURRIE     PETER W. CURRIE  ExecutiveVice President and
* 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

July 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40307

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO GALICIA-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-287-1

--------------------

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ignacio GaliciaCruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for

cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W. 3585 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06-1381),

which held that the district court is not required to provide

notice prior to sentencing of its sua sponte intention to impose

a non-Guidelines sentence. The appellant’s motion for summary
No. 07-40307

-2-

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0698n.06

Case No. 19

- 4206
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RONALD JACKSON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: CLAY, GILMAN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Ronald Jackson, Jr. robbed a 7

- Eleven at gunpoint . He was caught the next da y , and the federal government charged him with three crimes: robbery, using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence , and possessi ng a firearm and ammunition as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) (robbery) , 92 4(c)(1)(A)(ii) (brandishing) , 922(g)(1) (felon in possession). Jackson pled guilty to all three crimes . He now appeals his conviction for the second
crime

— brandishing a gun during a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

. Jackson argues for the first time on appeal that robbery does not count as a crime of
violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (defining robbery). But we have already held that it does. See
United States v. Gooc h , 850 F.3d 285, 291

– 92 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding that robbery as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1951 qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) ; see also United States v. Camp , 903 F.3d 59 4, 597 (6th Cir. 2018) ( same)

. Thus, t he district court did not err

— much lessCase No. 19

- 4206 , United States v. Jackson

- 2

-

plainly err

— in accepting Jackson’s plea and sentencing him based on the robbery constituting a
crime of violence

. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)

. And since Jackson does not challenge his convictions or sentence on any other grounds , we affirm

.
 Product Documentation

 July 21, 2020

Citrix Workspace app for Mac contains a single installation package and supports remote access 

through Citrix Gateway, and Secure Web Gateway.

You can install Citrix Workspace app for Mac in any of the following ways:

• From the Citrix website

• Automatically from Workspace for Web

• Using an Electronic Software Distribution (ESD) tool.

By a user from Citrix.com

As a first-time user, you can download Citrix Workspace app for Mac from Citrix.com or your own 

download site. You can then set up an account by entering an email address instead of a server URL. 

Citrix Workspace app for Mac determines the Citrix Gateway or StoreFront server associated with the 

email address. Then it prompts the user to log on and continue the installation. This feature is referred 

to as email-based account discovery.

NOTE:

A first-time user is a user who does not have Citrix Workspace app for Mac installed on their 

user device.

Email-based account discovery for a first-time user does not apply if you have downloaded from a 

location other than Citrix.com (such as a Citrix Receiver for Web site).

If your site requires the configuration of Citrix Workspace app for Mac, use an alternate deployment 

method.

Using an Electronic Software Distribution (ESD) tool

A first-time Citrix Workspace app for Mac user must enter a server URL to set up an account.

From Citrix Downloads page

You can install Citrix Workspace app for Mac from a network share, or directly on to the user device. 

You can do this by downloading the file from the Citrix website at http://www.citrix.com.

To install Citrix Workspace app for Mac:

1. Download the .dmg file for the version of Citrix Workspace app for Mac you want to install from the 

Citrix website. Open it.

2. On the Introduction page, click Continue.

3. On the License page, click Continue.

Manual install
4. Click Agree to accept the terms of the License Agreement.

5. On the Installation Type page, click Install.

6. Enter the user name and password of an administrator on the local device.

You can uninstall Citrix Workspace app for Mac manually by opening the .dmg file. Select Uninstall 

Citrix Workspace App and follow the on-screen instructions. The .dmg file is the file that is 

downloaded from Citrix when installing Citrix Workspace app for Mac for the first time. If the file is no 

longer on your computer, download the file again from Citrix Downloads to uninstall the application.

Citrix Workspace app for Mac sends you notifications when there is an update available for an existing

version or an upgrade to a newer version. Alternatively, you can also right-click on the Citrix 

Workspace app icon and click Check for Updates to find out whether updates or upgrades are 

available.

You can upgrade Citrix Workspace app for Mac from any of the previous versions of Citrix Workspace 

app for Mac.

When you perform an upgrade to a newer version of Citrix Workspace app for Mac, the previous 

version is uninstalled automatically. You do not need to restart your machine.

Uninstall

Upgrade
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Fuertes, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 916]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J), rendered December 22, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court’s failure to advise the defendant at the time of his plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent *(see People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; *see also People v Cornell,*16 NY3d 801, 802 [2011]; *People v Hill,*9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], *cert denied*553 US 1048 [2008]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea vacated, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings *(see People v Campbell,*102 AD3d 979 [2013]; *People v Weichow,*96 AD3d 883, 884 [2012]; *People v Borrego,*59 AD3d 456 [2009]).

*975The defendant’s remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.

Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7809

CEDRIC EMMANUEL PERKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT P. BOLLINGER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (4:08-cv-03208-DCN)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Emmanuel Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Emmanuel Perkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perkins has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4105 

To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza 

to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2006 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage 

reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 

4 PROJECT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army shall 

6 carry out the project for hurricane and storm damage re7 duction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, sub8 stantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 

9 conditions, described in the Reports of the Chief of Engi10 neers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4105 IS

1 total cost of $841,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

2 of $546,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

3 $294,800,000. 

4 (b) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper5 ation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replace6 ment of the Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and 

7 the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the 

8 project described in subsection (a) that provide for inland 

9 waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, 

10 in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources 

11 Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
LaSalle
      Bank N.A.135
      South LaSalle StreetSuite
      1625Chicago,
      IL 60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services








Annual
Statement of Compliance
 
 VIA:
EMAIL
 
 Bear
Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC
 383
Madison Avenue
 New York,
New York 10179
 regabnotifications@bear.com
 
 LaSalle
Bank National Association
 135 South
LaSalle Street, Suite 1511
 Chicago,
Illinois 60603
 
 Re:           Bear
Stearns Second Lien Trust 2007-1
 
 
 Reference
is made to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 30, 2007 (the
“Agreement”), among Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor,
Citibank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, LaSalle Bank National Association, as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and EMC Mortgage Corporation, as
Sponsor and Company.
 
 I,
Barbara L. Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Securities Administrator hereby certify that:
 
 (1)
A review of the activities of the Securities Administrator during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Securities Administrator under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
 
 (2)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Securities Administrator
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year or a portion thereof.
 
 
 Date:
February 27, 2008
 
 LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Securities Administrator
 
 
 /s/
Barbara L. Marik
 Barbara
L. Marik
 Senior
Vice President
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cramer, Inc., I,
Nicholas Christianson, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Secretary and Interim
Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:


                  (1)      This quarterly 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 this quarterly report
                           fairly presents, in all material respects, the
                           financial condition and results of operations of the
                           registrant for and as of the end of such quarter.


                                By: /s/ Nicholas Christianson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Nicholas Christianson
                                    Acting Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
                                    and Interim Chief Financial Officer




Date:  November 20, 2002
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at the Hood Building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On March 31, 2009, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All employees of the DOE, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in the Hood Building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from May 9, 1946 through December 31, 1963, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.

This designation became effective on April 30, 2009, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on April 30, 2009, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

Christine M. Branche,

Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. E9-10828 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P