alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD R. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-332-A, CA-98-1720-A) Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 2, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Reginald R. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-95-332-A; CA-98-1720-A (E.D. Va. filed July 17, 2000; entered July 20, 2000).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KINTE L. FORD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 95 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of August, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 22 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 22

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 
   the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of 
   ``waters of the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution 
                              Control Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters 
of the United States''' (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; June 29, 2015), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the Senate November 4, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 22

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 
   the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of 
   ``waters of the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution 
                              Control Act.
```
Exhibit 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA  for  the period ending October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
and  Principal  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
ss.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

1)   the  Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2)   the  information  in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the  Company.

By  /s/  Antonio Estrada
Antonio Estrada
Corporate Controller
and Principal Financial Officer
March 1, 2004




<PAGE>
| (logo) ncb National Cooperative Bank | 2011 Crystal DriveSuite, 800 Arlington, VA 22202 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|

 February 26, 2016 RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as DepositorAttn: Jim Barnard600 Washington Blvd.Stamford, CT 06901 RE:      Annual Statement as to Compliance            WFRBS 2013 C15 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-C15, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co-op Special Servicer”), I hereby certify that: a. A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) 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 Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2016.  Best regards,/s/ Karyn MannKaryn MannSenior Vice President, Investor Compliance National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivelin M. Dimitrov , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/    Ivelin M. DimitrovName:    Ivelin M. DimitrovDate: December 13, 2016
form10kaex1019.htm






Exhibit 10.19


 


Written Description of Provident Financial Services, Inc.’s 2011 Cash Incentive Compensation Plan


 


2011 Cash Incentive Compensation Plan. On January 27, 2011, the Board of Directors of Provident Financial Services, Inc. (the “Company”), on the recommendation of its Compensation Committee, approved an annual performance-based incentive plan for the payment of incentive cash compensation to certain officers and employees of The Provident Bank, the Company’s wholly owned savings bank subsidiary (the “Plan”), including senior executive officers.  The Plan provides for cash incentive payments based primarily on the Company’s 2011 financial performance compared with certain targets (the “Corporate
Targets”).  Incentive Payments based on the Company’s 2011 financial performance may be made if the Company meets or exceeds 95% of any of the Corporate Targets (“Threshold”).


 


For senior executive officers (including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer), 100% of the incentive payment that may be made under the Plan will be based on the Company’s 2011 performance using the following Corporate Targets that relate to the Company’s business plan and strategic objectives: (i) net income (weighted 25%); (ii) efficiency ratio (weighted 10%); (iii) net interest margin (weighted 5%); (iv) core deposits as a percentage of total deposits (weighted 10%); (v) total loans, net of the provision for loan losses (weighted 10%); (vi) non-performing assets as a percentage of average assets compared to peer median (weighted 10%); (vii) return on average assets (weighted
15%); (viii) return on average equity (weighted 5%) and (ix)  EPS growth compared to peer group median (weighted 10%).







For other officers and employees eligible to participate in the Plan, a portion of the incentive payment that may be made under the Plan will be based on the Company’s 2011 performance using the following Corporate Targets: (i) earnings per share (weighted 25%); (ii) net income (weighted 25%); (iii) efficiency ratio (weighted 25%); and (iv) return on average assets (weighted 25%).  A portion of the incentive payment will also be based on individual performance against personal goals and objectives, and may be paid whether or not Corporate Targets have been met.







Incentive payments will be a percentage of the employee’s base salary.  Using estimated 2011 base salary levels and the current number of employees that could participate in the Plan (443 persons), the total cash incentive payments that may be made for 2011 would range from approximately $2.7 million at the Threshold level up to $10.9 million at the Maximum level.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Ludwig Kuttner, Chief Executive Officer, and Charles W. Clayton, Chief Financial
Officer of Hampshire Group, Limited, each hereby certify that:

1)   The Quarterly Report of Hampshire Group, Limited on Form 10-Q for the
     period ended July 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
     Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934, and

2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hampshire
     Group, Limited.


                                             /s/ Ludwig Kuttner
                                             ------------------------
Date:  August 8, 2005                        Ludwig Kuttner
---------------------                        Chief Executive Officer



                                             /s/ Charles W. Clayton
                                             ------------------------
Date:  August 8, 2005                        Charles W. Clayton
---------------------                        Chief Financial Officer
MICHAEL JOE MCCOY,

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. 1D14-5914

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 21, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Michael J. McCoy was charged with the second-degree murder of 

a man with whom he believed his wife was having an affair and of the attempted 

second-degree murder of the wife. A jury found him guilty of the lesser-included 

offenses of manslaughter and aggravated battery with a firearm. On appeal, he 

challenges his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm,
2

alleging that the jury instructions and verdict form were fundamentally erroneous 

because the aggravated battery was listed after the attempted manslaughter option. 

He avers that lesser offenses must be listed on a verdict form in descending order 

by degree of offense; because aggravated battery is a second-degree felony (which 

carries a maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison but was enhanced here by 

the 10-20-Life statute to a minimum mandatory penalty of twenty-five years in 

prison), it should have been listed before the attempted manslaughter offense, 

which is a third-degree felony (carrying a maximum of five years in prison).

An error in the trial court’s listing of lesser-included offenses on a verdict 

form and in jury instructions is not fundamental error in this district. See Graham 

v. State, 100 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). For that reason, McCoy urges this 

Court to certify conflict between Graham and the Fifth District’s decision in 

Thomas v. State, 91 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). In Thomas, the defendant 

was convicted of aggravated battery, but the Fifth District reversed the conviction 

and sentence. It remanded the case for a new trial, holding that “the trial court 

fundamentally erred” in the way it listed the lesser-included offenses because “the 

jury could reasonably have concluded that the offenses were presented in 

descending order of seriousness and that attempted voluntary manslaughter was 

less serious than aggravated battery. As such, it is impossible to determine whether 

the jury, if given the opportunity, would have ‘pardoned’ the defendant by 
3

convicting him of attempted voluntary manslaughter under a proper instruction.” 

Id. at 881-82. Because the jury was accurately instructed and the evidence supports 

McCoy’s convictions obtained, we affirm the judgment and sentence at issue, but 

certify conflict with Thomas v. State, 91 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 12, 2015 106596 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KAILEE F. MESSORE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 22, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

John P.M. Wappett, Public Defender, Lake George (Glenn B.

Liebert of counsel), for appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee

B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County

(Hall Jr., J.), rendered November 15, 2012, convicting defendant

upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.
-2- 106596 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TYRIQUE ST. VALLE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1178

September 13, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE
chief FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. sECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report")
of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2015, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|By | /s/ Antonio Estrada Jr. | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Antonio Estrada Jr.     | 
|   | Chief Financial Officer | 
|   | August 31, 2015         |
#### Ernesto Rangel VILLALPANDO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73834.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esq., Law Offices of Rhoda W. Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jamie M. Dowd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM***

Ernesto Rangel Villalpando and his wife Maria Del Rosio Ramos Tapia seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact regarding qualifying relatives, *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency deprived them of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d *988926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“ [Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); see *also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed). We do not consider Villalpando’s contentions regarding physical presence and moral character, because Villalpando’s failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos Tapia’s mother was not a qualifying relative for the purposes of cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); *see also Molinar-Estrada,*293 F.3d at 1093-94.

We are not persuaded that petitioners’ removal results in the deprivation of their children’s rights. *See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet, statements of operations and cash flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1997.
</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>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  447,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,454
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               453,111
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 453,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,043
<BONDS>                                        240,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   453,111
<SALES>                                         25,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,858
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,401
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18

U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Report”) of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur
L. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,



|1) | the
                                         Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                                         Exchange Act of 1934; and                    
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|2) | the
                                         information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                         and result of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/
    Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | --------------------------- | 
|   | Arthur
    L. Smith         | 
|   | President
    and           | 
|   | Chief
    Executive Officer | 
|   | December
    20, 2017       |