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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 74 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 74

To designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component of the 
                National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Ms. Cantwell (for herself and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component of the 
                National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act''.

SEC. 2. UPPER WHITE SALMON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER.

    Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            `` ( ) White Salmon River, Washington.--The 20 miles of 
        river segments of the main stem of the White Salmon River and 
        Cascade Creek, Washington, to be administered by the Secretary 
        of Agriculture in the following classifications:
                    ``(A) The approximately 1.6-mile segment of the 
                main stem of the White Salmon River from the headwaters 
                on Mount Adams in section 17, township 8 north, range 
                10 east, downstream to the Mount Adams wilderness 
                boundary as a wild river.
                    ``(B) The approximately 5.1-mile segment of Cascade 
                Creek from its headwaters on Mount Adams in section 10, 
                township 8 north, range 10 east, downstream to the 
                Mount Adams Wilderness boundary as a wild river.
                    ``(C) The approximately 1.5-mile segment of Cascade 
                Creek from the Mount Adams Wilderness boundary 
                downstream to its confluence with the White Salmon 
                River as a scenic river.
                    ``(D) The approximately 11.8-mile segment of the 
                main stem of the White Salmon River from the Mount 
                Adams Wilderness boundary downstream to the Gifford 
                Pinchot National Forest boundary as a scenic river.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            NETWORKS ASSOCIATES, INC.

                 Consolidated Subsidiaries at December 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<S>                                                     <C>                       
1.  McAfee (UK) Limited                                 36. McAfee.Com Corporation
2.  Network Associates, GmbH                            37. Magic Solutions, Ltd.
3.  Network Associates, S.A.                            38. Magic Solutions Gmbh.
4.  Network Associates, S.r.l.                          39. Trusted Information Systems, Ltd.
5.  Network Associates, A.G.                            40. Trusted Information Systems, Gmbh
6.  Network Associates International, B.V.              41. NA NetTools Holding Company, Inc.
7.  Network Associates Software Development GmbH        42. NetTools Company Ltd.
8.  Network Associates Software Trading LLC, Hungary    43. NetTools Associates (Pty) Ltd.
9.  Network Associates NA, Sweden                       44. NA Network Associates OY
10. Network Associates, S.L. Spain                      45. Dr Solomon Ltd.
11. Network Associates International, Ltd.              46. Solomon Software Ltd.
12. Network Associates Canada Ltd.                      47. Solomon Australia Pty Ltd.
13. Network Associates Combination Company, Inc.        48. Solomon GmbH
14. Network Associates Technology, Inc.                 49. Solomon AG
15. Network Associates Holding Company, Inc.            50. Dr Solomon's Software, Inc.
16. Network Associates K.K.                             51. QA Information Security Holding AB
17. Network Associates Australia Pty. Ltd.              52. QA Information Security AB
18. Network Associates (Hong Kong) Ltd.                 53. QA Information Security OY
19. Network Associates Software (Singapore) Pte Ltd.    54. CSB Consulenza Software di Base S.r.l.
20. Network Associates (NS) ULC
21. FSA Canada Ltd.
22. Network General Europe Holding B.V.
23. Network General Barbados, Inc.
24. Paradigm Pty Ltd.
25. McAfee Do Brazil Ltda
26. McAfee Software de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
27. Network General Canada, Ltd
28. Network General Japan K.K.
29. Network Associates N.V.
30. Network General France SARL
31. Network General Italy SARL
32. Shuijers Holdings B.V.
33. McAfee Nederland
34. GoTech Europe B.V.
35. Network General Gmbh
</TABLE>


                                                                              88
1

Filed 5/20/13 P. v. Woods CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TINA MARIE WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C072025

(Super. Ct. No. CRF12896)

Defendant Tina Marie Woods pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and 

possessing methamphetamine. The abstract of judgment reflects a drug program fee, plus 

assessments, totaling $600.

On appeal, defendant asks that we order the abstract of judgment corrected to 

accurately reflect the sentence pronounced by the court. The People oppose the request 

and seek remand. We shall order correction of the abstract of judgment. 

BACKGROUND

Defendant entered an auto parts store with the intent to commit theft and 

possessed methamphetamine. She entered a negotiated plea of no contest to charges of 
2

second degree burglary and possession of methamphetamine, and admitted a prior 

conviction.

The presentence probation report did not recommend that the trial court order a 

drug program fee, and the trial court did not orally impose such a fee at sentencing. 

The abstract of judgment, however, contains a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11372.7) and its attendant penalties, assessments and surcharges, which total 

$600.

DISCUSSION

Where the abstract of judgment differs from the court’s oral pronouncements, the 

oral pronouncement of judgment controls. (People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 

1070; People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell).) “The clerk cannot 

supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the 

minute order [or] the abstract of judgment. [Citation.]” (People v. Zackery (2007) 

147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388.) 

Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected by this court on appeal. 

(Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185; People v. Garcia (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 18, 24, 

fn. 1.) Accordingly, we shall order the abstract of judgment corrected to delete all 

references to the $150 drug program fee. 

Although the People seek remand, because imposition of the drug program fee is 

based on defendant’s ability to pay (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (b)), on a silent 

record, as here, we presume the trial court found defendant did not have the ability to pay 

the fee. (People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected 

abstract of judgment deleting the Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 drug program 

fee and each of its attendant assessments, fees and surcharges, and to forward a certified 
3

copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation.

 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 MURRAY , J.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350Certification

 

**STATEMENTFURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned is the CEO and President of Petrocorp Inc.  This Certification ismade pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  ThisCertification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Petrocorp Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2009.

 

Theundersigned certifies that such 10-K Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofPetrocorp Inc. as of December 31, 2009.

 

ThisCertification is executed as of April 21, 2010.

* *

/s/ JamesFitzsimons    

     JamesFitzsimons

     CEO andPresident
Exhibit 33.4


[LOGO] Integra




                       REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE
                      WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

Integra Bank Corporation (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of November 30, 2007, the date of the termination of the contract,
and for the period from January 1, 2007 through November 30, 2007 (the
"Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB, except for criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), (2)(ii)-(vii), (3)(i)-(iv), (4)(i)-(iii), and
(4)(v)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions
covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exceptions
identified above, the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). With respect to Item
1122(d)(4)(iv), the Asserting Party's responsibility is limited to the timely
delivery of payments to the primary servicer, First Data Resources, and the
Asserting Party does not take responsibility for the posting of payments by the
primary servicer, First Data Resources. The transactions covered by this report
include the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party
served as a servicer that are backed by the same asset type backing the
asset-backed securities transactions completed by IndyMac ABS, Inc. and IndyMac
Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, that were completed on or after
January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 where the asset-backed
securities were outstanding during the year ended December 31, 2007 including
IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust (Series 2006-H1, 2006-H2,
2006-H3, 2006-H4, and 2007-H1 herein referred to as "the Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of
November 30, 2007 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
transactions taken as a whole.

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of November 30, 2007 and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.

Integra Bank Corporation

January 22, 2008

By: /s/ Tina D. Spears

Name: Tina D. Spears

Title: AVP

               Integra Bank N.A. 21 S.E.Third Street P.O. Box 868
         Evansville, Indiana 47705-0868 1-800-467-1928 integrabank.com
#### Williams, adm’r, *v.*Macon & Birmingham R. R. Co.

1. *A*s to the right to open and conclude, the case is controlled by *Harrison*v. *Young,*9 *Ga.*359; *Streyer*v. *Georgia Southern & Florida R. R. Co.,*90 *Ga.*56; *Wolff*v. *Same,*this ternr, *ante,*555.

2. Several of the grounds of the motion for a new trial present no question which this court can review, some of them not being sufficiently verified by the judge, and others not specifying the ground or grounds of objection to the evidence.

3. In none of the other grounds of the motion for a.new trial does any error appear authorizing or requiring this court to grant a new trial over the approval of the verdict by the presiding judge.

August 14, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Appeal. Before Judge Hunt. Upson superior court. November term, 1893.

Assessors appointed to assess the damages for a railroad right of way through lands of the plaintiff' in error, made their award of $500, from which an appeal was taken. On the trial the jury found $423.50 as damages, and a motion for a new trial was overruled.

*710Miller & Miller, for plaintiff in error.

Gustin, Guerry & Hall, M. H. Sandwich and B. L. Tisinger, *contra.*
2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-5-2011

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 10-2367

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 598.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/598
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 10-2367

_____________

NICOLE SCHNEYDER 

v.

GINA SMITH,

 Appellant

v.

LAURA DAVIS, ESQUIRE;

THE DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-06-cv-04986

District Judge: The Honorable Jan E. Dubois

_____________

Argued January 26, 2011

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge,

and STEARNS, District Judge*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the concurrence filed on July 29, 2011, 

is hereby vacated. A corrected concurrence shall be filed forthwith. There are no 

substantive changes to the concurrence. 

 

*

The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge for the District of 

Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
BY THE COURT:

 

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

 CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

Dated: August 5, 2011

tmk/cc: Daniel Silverman, Esq.

 Peter Carr, Esq.

 Alison J. Guest, Esq.

 Todd M. Mosser, Esq.

 Joseph Goldberg, Esq.

 Michael B. Pullano, Esq.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

# Dates:

*Time and Date:*                         June 15, 2009, at 1 p.m. (only the Board's Industry Advisory Subcommittee will meet on this day), June 16, 2009, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., and June 17, 2009, from 8 a.m. until 12 Noon, Eastern Daylight Time.                     

# Place:

This meeting will take place at The Hershey Lodge and Conference Center, 1077 West Governor, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters To Be Considered:

The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565. 

Dated: May 15, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.

 [FR Doc. E9-11763 Filed 5-15-09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

PHU CHI TRUONG, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50127

D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00026-PA-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. 

Phu Chi Truong appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 37-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Truong contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

* 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

MAR 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-50127

consider and address his arguments in favor of a non-custodial sentence. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the 

district court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that a withinGuidelines sentence was warranted to sanction Truong’s breach of the court’s trust, 

afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and protect the public. The 

district court was not required to address specifically each of Truong’s arguments. 

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Perez-Perez, 

512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
EX-35.2
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation
Proven Performance

ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

I, Mark T. Novachek and Michelle Viner as Officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation
("EMC") as Master Servicer pursuant to the Bear Steams ARM Trust 2007-3 (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC Master Servicing activities during the period from and
   including April 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the
   "Reporting Period") and EMC's Master Servicing performance under the
   Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC Master Servicing has
   fulfilled all of its obligation under the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the Reporting Period in all material respects.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th
day of March 2008.

/s/ Mark T Novachek
Mark T Novachek
Senior Vice President

/s/ Michelle Viner
Michelle Viner
Manager-Vice President


800 State Highway 121 Bypass, Lewisville, TX 75067-4180
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293150, Lewisville, TX 75029-3150

(logo) MBA
Member Mortgage Bankers
Association of America
#### The Home Building and Loan Association *v.*Van Pelt.

On the element of law this case is controlled by the prior decision made in the same case and reported in 87 *Ga.*870. Upon all the essential elements of fact the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the plea of the defendant involved iu the last trial was true; and the court committed no error in excluding evidence^ in charging the jury, or in overruling the motion for a new trial. *Judgment affirmed,.*

June 30, 1894.

Complaint. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court. September term, 1893.

S. Barnett and Candler & Thomson, for plaintiff.

John A. Wimpy, for defendant.

The head-note 17111 be sufficiently understood by reference to former reports of this case. 79 *Ga.*439; 87 *Ga.*370; 92 *Ga.*501.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.1.1

                                                                  MORGAN COMPANY
                                                           CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

October 1, 2004

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC
20549  USA

Dear Sirs:

RE:  MORGAN BEAUMONT, INC. (FORMERLY PAN AMERICAN ENERGY CORP.)
     FILE REFERENCE NO. 000-33389
     ----------------------------------------------------------

We were previously the principal accountants for Morgan Beaumont, Inc. and we
reported on the consolidated financial statements of Morgan Beaumont Inc. and
subsidiaries as of the period since August 31, 2000. As of this date, we were
not engaged as the principal accountants for Morgan Beaumont, Inc. We have read
Morgan Beaumont, Inc.'s statements under Item 4 of its Form 8-K, dated October
1, 2004, and we agree with such statements.

For the most recent fiscal year of 2003 and any subsequent interim period, there
has been no disagreement between Morgan Beaumont, Inc. and Morgan & Company,
Chartered Accountants, on any matter of accounting principles or practices,
financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which
disagreement, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Morgan & Company, would
have caused it to make a reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in
connection with its reports.

Yours truly,

"Morgan & Company"

Chartered Accountants

cc:  Morgan Beaumont, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

April 3, 2018 

s0326 

Order 

 

Clerk 

April 3, 2018 

155821 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 155821 

 COA: 335761 

Macomb CC: 2012-000570-FC 

RENYATTA ANNETTE HAMILTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).