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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5150

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRACIE WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:04-cr-00848-PMD-4)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: November 8, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Stanley Feldman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tracie Lashaun Williams appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking her probation and imposing three months’

imprisonment. Williams’ attorney filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are 

no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of 

whether Williams’ sentence was unreasonable. Williams was 

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but 

has not done so. Because Williams has been discharged from 

federal custody, because her sentence did not include a term of 

supervised release, and because there are no continuing 

collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on 

revocation of probation, Williams’ appeal is moot. See

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 10 (1998). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

dismiss Williams’ appeal as moot. This court requires that 

counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument 
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
VANDIN CALITU AND ADRIANA PROTEASA

CALITU

,
Appellant s ,

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 0024

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 24, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Aaron K. Bowden , Judge

.

Vandin Calitu and Adriana Proteasa

- Calitu, pro se , Appellant s

.
Joseph D. Wargo and Susan Cap ote of Wargo & French LLP, Miami , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,540
<INVENTORY>                                     10,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,577
<PP&E>                                         266,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                  94,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,230
<BONDS>                                         71,200
<COMMON>                                        60,317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,318
<SALES>                                         58,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,406
<CGS>                                           31,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,297
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (174)
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
From: The District Court of the 17th Judicial District. County of Valley.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SPENCER LAGREE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-04-16 DECISION

On November 7, 2005, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with four (4) years suspended, for the offense of Criminal Mischief, a felony; Count II: A commitment to the Valley County Jail for a period of one (1) year, with six (6) months suspended, for the offense of Stalking, a misdemeanor; and Count III: A commitment to the Valley County Jail for a period of one (1) year, with six (6) months suspended, for the *33offense of Partner or Family Member Assault, a misdemeanor. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently with each other.

On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant appeared via videoconference and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
J

- A34010

- 14

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

WALTER R. SCHWEIZER

Appellant No. 369 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered December 20 , 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No: CP

- 67

- CR

- 0008282

- 2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STABILE, JJ.

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2015
I respectfully dissent and would vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing.
I do not disagree with the Majority’s general statement that failure to
take responsibility an d lack of remorse are proper sentencing factors to be
considered by a trial court. In this case, however, I am unable to separate
these general considerations from the context in which they were referenced
by the trial court. The trial court’s reference to lack of remorse and failure
to take responsibility were stated in response to Appellant’s actions to
withdraw his guilty plea and exercise his right to go to trial. A defendant
who chooses to “go to trial and roll the dice” exercises a right guaranteed by
our federal and state constitutions. I therefore, would find error under

Commonwealth v. Bethea , 379 A.2d 102 (Pa. 1977).
Exhibit 31

                                                        [LOGO] imbIndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, 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 IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series
      2007-H1 (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 statement(s) required in
      this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
      the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the servicing agreement 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 the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, Integra Bank Corporation and First Data Resources, LLC.

Date: March 26, 2008




/s/ Blair Abernathy
-------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Gil Boosidan, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of Suspect Detection Systems Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10- K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: March 21, 2011
 
  /s/ Gil Boosidan
  Name: Gil Boosidan
  Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties II 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319723
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       778
<EPS-BASIC>                                      28.00<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,705]


FLA Orthopedics, Inc., Huntersville, NC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of FLA 
Orthopedics, Inc., Huntersville, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10919 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 483 

To strengthen religious liberty and combat government hostility to expressions 

of faith, by extending the reach of The Equal Access Act to elementary 

schools. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2005 

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

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL

To strengthen religious liberty and combat government hostility to expressions of faith, by extending the reach 

of The Equal Access Act to elementary schools.

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

3 SECTION 1. EQUAL ACCESS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. 

4 The Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in section 802— 

7 (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘ele8 mentary school or’’ after ‘‘public’’; and 
2

•S 483 IS

1 (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘ele2 mentary school or’’ after ‘‘public’’; and 

3 (2) in section 803, by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(5) The term ‘elementary school’ means a pub6 lic school that provides elementary education as de7 termined by State law.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3954 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3954

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require monthly 
reporting regarding the number of individuals who have fallen into the 
   part D donut hole and the amount such individuals are spending on 
             covered part D drugs while in the donut hole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2006

  Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require monthly 
reporting regarding the number of individuals who have fallen into the 
   part D donut hole and the amount such individuals are spending on 
             covered part D drugs while in the donut hole.

    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 ``Honest Medicare Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. MONTHLY REPORTING REGARDING THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE 
              FALLEN INTO THE PART D DONUT HOLE AND THE AMOUNT SUCH 
              INDIVIDUALS ARE SPENDING ON COVERED PART D DRUGS WHILE IN 
              THE DONUT HOLE.

    Section 1860D-1 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Information Regarding Individuals Who Have Reached the 
Initial Coverage Limit.--Not later than the 15th of each month 
(beginning with February 2007), the Secretary shall make available to 
the public information on--
            ``(1) the number of individuals enrolled in a prescription 
        drug plan or an MA-PD plan who have reached the initial 
        coverage limit applicable under the plan but who have not 
        reached the annual out-of-pocket threshold specified in section 
        1860D-2(b)(4)(B); and
            ``(2) the amount such individuals are spending on covered 
        part D drugs after they have reached such limit and before they 
        have reached such threshold.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael William MAYO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41250

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony P. Troiani, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Michael William Mayo has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Mayo received a copy of counsel’s motion but filed no response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from fur*648ther responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF

THE TRUSTEE*

OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee
Ann Anderson, Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of Compass Bank, on behalf of Compass Bank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust), not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby
certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
explained in Note 1 to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September 16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial
statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:

/s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:

Lee Ann AndersonTitle:

Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate:

August 9, 2012




|* | The Trust has no executive officers.
|- | ------------------------------------
#### State v. Kitchengs

Case below: 183 N.C. App. — (5 June 2007)

No. 322P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-941) '

Denied 08/23/07
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****By****Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer****Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings** 

 

Dated -August 11, 2003 

            In accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, Kshitij Mohan and John Y. Caloz, hereby certify that, to our knowledge, the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written above.

 

  /s/  Kshitij Mohan				Kshitij Mohan				President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

  /s/  John Y. Caloz				John Y. Caloz				Corporate Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial				Officer and Secretary