alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel Angel ARIAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-30157.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Jan. 8, 2008.

Pamela Jackson Byerly, Esq., USSP— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*841Tracy A. Staab, Esq., FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Arias appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arias contends that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the district court enhanced his sentence based on the fact that he was removed subsequent to a felony conviction, a fact that was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. However, Arias admitted pursuant to his plea agreement and during his plea colloquy that he was removed from the United States in 2004, subsequent to his 1989 felony conviction for attempted murder. We therefore conclude that the district court did not make findings beyond the fact of a prior conviction when it determined that Arias was previously removed subsequent to a felony conviction. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1326(b); *United States v. Bolanos-Hernandez,*492 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir.2007).

Arias also contends that *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) is no longer good law. We reject this contention. *See Bolanos-Hernandez,*492 F.3d at 1148.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate, for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11045

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ENCARNACION CASTILLO, JR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CR-56-ALL

Before GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Encarnacion Castillo, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the

district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that

the district court failed to properly weigh the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when

imposing the statutory maximum sentence, thereby rendering his sentence

unreasonable. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11045

2

Because Castillo did not object to his sentence in the district court, review

is limited to plain error. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, ___ F.3d ___, Nos.

07-10151, 07-10321, 2008 WL 1874577 at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008). The

district court considered the policy statements of Chapter 7 and determined that

the facts of the instant case warranted a sentence above the recommended

range. Castillo’s probation officer testified for sentencing purposes, revealing

that Castillo tested positive for cocaine on one occasion and did not submit a

urine specimen on another occasion. Castillo has not shown that his revocation

sentence is unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. United States v. Hinson, 429

F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in

imposing Castillo’s sentence. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      820,698
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    203,052
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         118,121
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        28,204
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  12,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,182,107
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            181,831<F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           791,757
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   17,548
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 190,971
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,182,107
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      279,795
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     228,702
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     228,702
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         51,093
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               9,539
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  60,632
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        42,692
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,318
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          92,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

<FN>
<F1>Old Dominion is organized and operated as a cooperative. Patronage capital
is the retained net margins of Old Dominion which have been allocated to
its members based on their respective power purchases in accordance with
Old Dominion's bylaws.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Benjamin H. JORDAN, Sr., d/b/a Mid-South Masonry & Mechanical Company and Amwest Surety Insurance Company *v.*Carrie THOMAS

98-139

964 S.W.2d 399

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 12, 1998

*Benjamin Jordan, Sr.,*for appellants.

*Skokos, Bequette & Billingsley, P.A., by: Keith I. Billingsley,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Benjamin Jordan, Sr., has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. The motion reflects that on May 29, 1997, the Pulaski County Circuit Court entered a judgment in *269favor of appellee Carrie Thomas on her claim against appellants for breach of a construction agreement. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order dismissing Jordan’s personal counterclaim for damages on July 1, 1997. Jordan tendered the record from the trial court to the clerk of this court on October 29, 1997; however, the clerk refused to accept the tender of the record on the basis that it was untimely. Jordan did not pursue the matter until February 6, 1998, when he filed his motion for rule on the clerk.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s May 29, 1997, decree, which granted judgment in favor of appellee, was not appealable because it did not adjudicate all of the claims of the parties. *See*Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *String v. Kazi,*312 Ark. 6, 846 S.W.2d 649 (1993). The trial court did not enter an order dismissing Jordan’s counterclaim until July 1, 1997. Jordan filed a notice of appeal from the July 1 order on July 31, 1997, and he attempted to tender the record on October 29, 1997, the ninetieth day following his notice of appeal. Under Rule 5 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Jordan’s tender of the record was timely, and the clerk erred in refusing to docket the appeal and file the record. However, we note that Jordan cannot perfect an appeal on behalf of Amwest Surety Insurance Company because a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney. *See McAdams v. Pulaski County Circuit Court,*330 Ark. 848, 956 S.W.2d 869 (1997) (per curiam). Jordan is not an attorney, and he cannot perfect an appeal on behalf of the corporation. Accordingly, the motion for rule on the clerk is granted in part.
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11369 Summary Calendar

WILLIS DOUGLAS ROBINSON Plaintiff-Appellant

v. JANIE COCKRELL; DIRECTOR OF CSC; DICKENS COUNTY; JOHN DOES, Dolph Briscoe Unit Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CV-130
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Will is Douglas Robinson, Texas prisoner # 1012600, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his appeal, he argues the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim that he has suffered health problems as a result of his exposure to secondhand, or environmental, tobacco smoke. He also argues that, contrary to the district court’s findings, he exhausted his administrative remedies. However, Robinson has failed to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 28, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-11369

2 address the district court’s other bases for dismissal: mootness, statute of limitations, and failure to name defendants who are liable under § 1983. Thus, even if he did exhaust his administrative remedies, he has not shown that he could overcome the other hurdles underlying the district court’s dismissal ofhis suit. Failure to identify such an error in the district court’s analysis is the same
as ifthe appellant had not appealed thejudgment. Brinkmann v. DallasCounty Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see id. (“We will not raise and discuss legal issues that [the appellant] has failed toassert.”); seealso Grantv. Culler, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Although we liberally construe briefs ofprose litigantsand apply lessstringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.”). The district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s § 1983 suit is therefore AFFIRMED.
BRANDON JEROME 

FLEMING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

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 FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2991

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 12, 2016. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela L. Cox, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.1 - Mr. Kedar Belhe Resignation from Digitiliti Board of Directors.






December 1 2011




Hello Fellow Board Members,


I hereby would like to formally submit my resignation of the board of Digitiliti. My own personal venture is at a very critical juncture right now and it needs my full and undivided attention in order to survive and thrive.


Digitiliti is now positioned well for success and I believe the best days for Digitiliti are ahead.


It has been a pleasure to work with all of you, albeit with some very briefly.


Thank you all


Sincerely,


Kedar
Exhibit 34.8



LOGO

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. and NRC
Group, Inc.

San Francisco, California

We have examined
managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report of Managements Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, that Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. and NRC
Group, Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), for the asset-backed securities transactions (the
Platform), as defined in managements assertion, excluding the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(1)(ii) and (iii), in the CFR, which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by
them with respect to the servicing Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset- backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the
period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGOArmaninoLLPSan Francisco, California


February 26, 2016



LOGO
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Nine FiscalMonths Ended
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,Sept. 29, 2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries and after
eliminating
undistributed earnings of equity method investees
    
    $
    151.0
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )
    
    $
    (27.6
    )
    
    $
    58.1Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.4
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    33.4
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6
    
    
    
    47.5
    
    
    
    51.5TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    184.0
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5
    
    
    $
    19.9
    
    
    $
    109.6FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    28.4
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3
    
    
    $
    41.3
    
    
    $
    43.2Amortization of capitalized expenses related to debt
    
    
    2.2
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.7
    
    
    
    4.4Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    2.4
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    3.9TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    33.4
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6
    
    
    $
    47.5
    
    
    $
    51.5RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    5.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.1
  70
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Timothy L. Felter, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and we have:

      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
      the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
      of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting; and


(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.


/s/ Timothy L. Felter
----------------------------------
Timothy L. Felter
Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
NINE WEST GROUP INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF AUGUST 2,
1997, AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED AUGUST
2, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                          26,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,851
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    539,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               827,734
<PP&E>                                         218,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                (77,425)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,384,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          223,822
<BONDS>                                        689,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           358
<OTHER-SE>                                     408,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,384,046
<SALES>                                        901,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               901,767
<CGS>                                          513,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  513,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               287,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,989
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,417
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,417
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
        

</TABLE>