alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IGUEL ANGEL GUTIER REZVIC ENTE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 14-10455

14-10456 D.C . Nos. 4:14-c r-00775-R C C 4:14-cr-50065-R C C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, M igue l Ange l Gutie rre z -Vic e nte a ppe a ls his guilty -ple a

c onvic tion a

nd 57-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry a fte r de porta

tion, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326, a nd the re voc ation of supervise d re le a se an d

6-m onth 

# FIL ED OCT 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c onse c utive se nte nc e im p ose d the re upon. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

a lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gutierre z -Vic e nte ’ s c o unse l ha s file d a brie f stat ing tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Gutie rre z -Vic e nte the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

14 - 1 04 5 5 & 1 4 - 1 0 4 5 6 2
EX-35.3
(logo) ncb


2011 Crystal Drive
Suite 800
Arlington, Virginia 22202

TEL  (703) 302-8000
TOLL (800) 955-9622
FAX  (703) 647-3460

February 26,2014

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor
Attn:  Jim Barnard
600 Washington Blvd.
Stamford, CT 06901

RE:      Annual Statement as to Compliance
         WFRBS 2013 C13

Dear Sir/Madam:


In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in
connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2013-C13, as an authorized officer of NCB, FSB (the
"NCB Master Servicer"), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that:


a.  A review of the activities of the NCB Master Servicer during the
    preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.


b.  To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer
    Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material
    respects throughout the year.


Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate
cover on or before March 31,2014.



Best regards,

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann
Senior Vice President, Investor Compliance
NCB,FSB

www.ncb.coop

Banking & Financial Services
Cooperative Expansion
Economic Development


NCB refers to National Consumer Cooperative Bank and its subsidiaries
(primarily NCB Financial Corporation and its subsidiary, NCB, FSB) its
affiliated non-profit corporation, NCB Capital Impact, and also NCB
Community Works, LLC which is jointly owned by NCB and NCB Capital Impact.
Each is a separate corporation within the NCB Financial Group.
Exhibit (23)(b)Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and in therelated Prospectuses of CMS Energy Corporation: (1) Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-27849, No. 333-37241, No. 333-74958, No.333-45556, No. 333-125553 and No. 333-52560) of CMS Energy Corporation;  (2) Registration Statements (Form S-4 No. 33-60007 and No. 33-55805) of CMS EnergyCorporation;  (3) Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-32229 and No. 333-58686) pertaining to theCMS Energy Corporation Performance Incentive Stock Plan and Executive Stock Option Plan,respectively, and  (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to the Employee Savingsand Incentive Plan of Consumers Energy Company;of our report dated February 21, 2007 (except for “Discontinued Operations” in Note 2, as to whichthe date is February 20, 2008) with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedulesof CMS Energy Corporation for 2006 and 2005 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2007.               /s/Ernst & Young LLP         Detroit, Michigan
#### ADELPHIA RECOVERY TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-0039-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 26, 2010.

David M. Friedman, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres *&*Friedman LLP (Michael C. Har-wood, Howard W. Schub, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP; Deirdre E. Connell, Jerold Solovy, Barry Levenstam, Richard F. Ziegler, and Andrew Weiss-man, Jenner & Block, LLP; on the brief) Chicago, IL and New York, NY, for Appellant.

Philip D. Anker (Joel Millar and Alan E. Schoenfeld oses, on the brief) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY,* for Lender Appellees.

*11Richard L. Wynne (Todd R. Geremia, Victoria Dorftnan, Bennet L. Spiegel, Erin N. Brady, and Laura A. Thomas, on the brief) Jones Day, New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA, and San Francisco, CA, for Non-Agent Lender Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because of the large number of law firms and attorneys representing the over 200 defendants in this case, the full list of attorneys and law firms is not listed here. A comprehensive list of all parties and attorneys involved in this litigation can be found on the public docket for this case.

SUMMARY ORDER

This appeal emerges from the complex bankruptcy proceedings handled with care and thoughtfulness by Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the matter of the bankruptcy of Adelphia Communications Corp. and its subsidiaries. Plaintiff Adelphia Recovery Trust (“ART”) appeals from a December 9, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing, in part, plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge McKenna held, in substance, that ART cannot pursue claims on behalf of certain uninjured creditors, which had been fully paid under the terms of two reorganization plans approved by Judge Gerber. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in concluding, *inter alia,*that plaintiff lacked standing to bring various claims under federal bankruptcy law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We have reviewed plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s comprehensive Memorandum and Order of June 17, 2008, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs claims asserted under bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the Decem-
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 702 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 702

   To strengthen the prohibitions on insider trading, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2015

Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To strengthen the prohibitions on insider trading, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act''.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING THE PROHIBITION ON INSIDER TRADING.

    Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j) 
is amended--
            (1) in the matter immediately preceding the flush text at 
        the end of the section, by inserting at the end the following:
    ``(d)(1)(A) To purchase, sell, or cause the purchase or sale of any 
security on the basis of material information that the person knows or 
has reason to know is not publicly available.
    ``(B) To knowingly or recklessly communicate material information 
that the person knows or has reason to know is not publicly available 
to any other person under circumstances in which it is reasonably 
foreseeable that such communication is likely to result in a violation 
of subparagraph (A).
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `not publicly 
available' shall not include information that the person has 
independently developed from publicly available sources.
    ``(3) The Commission may, by rule, exempt any person, transaction, 
or communication, or any class of persons, transactions, or 
communications from the prohibitions under this subsection, if the 
Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate 
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
    ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect 
liability under subsection (b).''; and
            (2) in the flush text at the end of the section--
                    (A) by striking ``Rules promulgated'' and inserting 
                ``Subsection (d) and rules promulgated''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or subsection (d)'' after 
                ``subsection (b)'' each place that term appears.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.B****CERTIFICATION**I, John R. Sult, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Colorado Interstate Gas Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-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 thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which 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 ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based 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 fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; 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 3, 2006         */s/ John R. Sult*   John R. Sult   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0119 IN THE MATTER OF: W.R. , Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 27, 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2020

06/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0119
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51261 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE GUERRERO BORREGO-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-867-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Guerrero Borrego-Mendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         784,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  274,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,999
<INVENTORY>                                  1,586,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,630,440
<PP&E>                                         418,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 251,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,835,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,626,683
<BONDS>                                        611,030
<COMMON>                                        55,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          782,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (240,132)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,835,494
<SALES>                                        270,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               704,403
<CGS>                                          242,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  484,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               678,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,613
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (325,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (325,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (325,197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

FedQuest Solutions, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62824

)

Under Contract No. W912HP-17-F-6001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Seth A. Robbins, Esq.

 Robbins Law Group, PLLC

 Arlington, VA

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appellant notified the Board by letter dated March 16, 2021, that the Contracting 

Officer had rescinded the contracting officer’s final decision (COFD). Absent bad faith, 

rescission of the COFD leaves no claims for us to adjudicate, mooting the appeal. 

Combat Support Assocs., ASBCA No. 58945, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,288 at 176,974.

By Order dated March 19, 2021, the Board informed the parties that it intended to 

dismiss this appeal unless either party objected within 14 days of that Order. The Board 

received no objection from either party.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

Dated: April 13, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62824, Appeal of FedQuest 

Solutions Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 13, 2021

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GLIATECH
INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,769
<SECURITIES>                                     6,039
<RECEIVABLES>                                      481
<ALLOWANCES>                                        33
<INVENTORY>                                        333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,003
<PP&E>                                           2,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,870
<SALES>                                            682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,310
<CGS>                                              264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

____________ 

 No. 10-2553 

 ____________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

NAEEM COTTON, 

 Appellant

 ____________ 

 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 (D.C. Crim. No. 1-09-cr-00563-001) 

 District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb 

 ____________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

 February 9, 2011 

 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 

(Filed: February 28, 2011) 

 ____________ 

 OPINION 

____________ 

WEIS, Circuit Judge. 

 Defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Finding that the gun had been stolen, the District Court added an enhancement under 
2 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A). The resulting Guidelines range was 92 to 115 months, based 

on a total offense level of 23 and Criminal History Category VI. The District Court 

sentenced defendant to a 105-month term of imprisonment. 

 On appeal, defendant vigorously argues that there was inadequate proof 

that the firearm had, in fact, been stolen. We are not persuaded that the District Court’s 

finding on this point was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Sanchez, 507 F.3d 532, 

538-39 (7thCir. 2007) (affirming two-level sentence enhancement based upon police 

report of stolen firearm, where other indicia of reliability were present); see also United 

States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105, 1108-10 (8th Cir. 2009) (same, where, in absence of 

police report, district court relied upon testimony of gun’s prior owner as to 

circumstances of its theft). 

 In addition, the District Court stated that, even if it “had . . . not assessed 

the two point adjustment for . . . the firearm being stolen, [it] nonetheless would have 

varied upward to the [105-month] sentence” based on the § 3553(a) factors. See, e.g., 

United States v. Smalley, 517 F.3d 208, 214 n.6 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[I]f a district court 

wishes to provide for the possibility that a different Guidelines calculation applies by 

handing down an alternative sentence, it must still begin by determining the correct 

alternative Guidelines range and properly justify the chosen sentence”). 

 Defense counsel presented a lengthy and thoughtful argument on behalf of 

his client. The record before us reflects the District Court’s considered and extensive 
3 

analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. We find no significant procedural or substantive error 

in the sentencing and, therefore, defer “‘to the . . . determination that the § 3553(a) 

factors, on a whole,’ justify the sentence.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 

(3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

 Accordingly, we will affirm the Judgment of the District Court.