alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abdulbaqi Abdulwali Ahmed ALDHUBHANI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72294.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Rochelle A. Nwadibia, Privitera and Nwadibia, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Abdulbaqi Abdulwali Ahmed Al-Dhubhani, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of the motion to remand, *see Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005); and we review *de novo*Al-Dhubhani’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, *see Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Al-Dhubhani failed to comply with the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the face of the record does not show a “clear and obvious case of ineffective assistance of counsel.” *Castillo-Perez v. INS,*212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir.2000). The BIA’s denial of the request for remand was therefore proper. *See Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that before the BIA will consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the alien must first satisfy the threshold procedural requirements of Lozada).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 4.6

 

First Amendment to the

2009 Restatement of the Aon Savings Plan

 

 

WHEREAS, the Aon Savings Plan (the “Plan”) is currently set out in the 2009 Amendment and Restatement of the Aon Savings Plan, which was generally effective as of January 1, 2009 (the “Restatement”).

 

WHEREAS, Section 17.01 of the Plan allows the Board of Directors of Aon Corporation to amend the Plan, and the Board has delegated to the undersigned officers of Aon Corporation the authority to make certain amendments to the Plan.

 

WHEREAS, the undersigned officers desire to amend the Plan as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan, as set out in the Restatement, is hereby amended as follows, effective as of October 1, 2010:

 

Section 2.01.  The following provision shall be added at the end of Section 2.01:

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, individuals on the payroll system of Hewitt Associates LLC or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries (“Hewitt employees”) shall be ineligible to participate in this Plan until such time that the Company or its designee amends this Plan to allow for such participation.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Aon Corporation has adopted this First Amendment to the 2009 Restatement of the Aon Savings Plan, effective as set forth above.

 

 

	
 
    	
Aon   Corporation
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jeremy G.O. Farmer
    
	
 
    	
Jeremy   G.O. Farmer
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Senior   Vice President, Head of Human
    
	
 
    	
Resources
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Christa Davies
    
	
 
    	
Christa   Davies
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Executive   Vice President and Chief
    
	
 
    	
Financial   Officer
    
				


 

1
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF UA GRANITE
CORPORATION



In connection with the accompanying
Annual Report on Form 10-K of UA Granite Corporation for the year ended March 31, 2014, the undersigned, Myroslav Tsapaliuk, President
of UA Granite Corporation, does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2014 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 such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2014 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of UA Granite Corporation



|Date:  June 27, 2014 |                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                                                                                                                                                           
|                     | /s/ Myroslav Tsapaliuk                                                                                                                                                                    
|                     | Myroslav Tsapaliuk                                                                                                                                                                        
|                     | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
----

|   | 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing General Partner of                             |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                    |
| August 14, 2009                                         |
|                                                    |
|                                                    |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing General Partner of                             |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                    |
| August 14, 2009                                         |
Because Dominguez filed the notice of appeal more than fifteen days late, the instrument 1

itself cannot serve as an implied motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d

615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00120-CV

Roy Dominguez, Appellant

v.

Jo Anne Dominguez, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 199,317-C, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NELSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The judgment in this case was signed August 19, 2004. On October 28, 2004,

appellant Roy Dominguez filed with the trial court a notice of appeal, a motion to amend the

judgment, and a motion for nunc pro tunc judgment and order. The trial court did not rule on

Dominguez’s motions. Because Dominguez’s motion to amend judgment was untimely, his notice

of appeal was due on September 19, 2004. Dominguez did not file a motion for an extension of time

to file notice of appeal. A late-filed notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction on this Court.

1

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 24, 2005
2
(logo) ncb 

National Cooperative Bank

 

2011 Crystal Drive

Suite, 800

Arlington, VA 22202

 

 

# February 6, 2018

 

RBSCommercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor

600Washington Blvd.

Stamford,CT 06901

 

RE:     Annual Statement as to Compliance

           WFRBS 2013 C15

 

DearSir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreemententered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C15, as an authorized officer of NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCB Master Servicer”), I herebycertify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that:

 

a.      A reviewof the activities of the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year(the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.     To thebest of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer hasfulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Pleasenote that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover onor before March 31, 2018.

 

 

Bestregards,

/s/Karyn Mann

KarynMann

SeniorVice President, Investor Compliance

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A.
Exhibit 4.10







AMENDMENT TO COVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE








	
DATE OF NOTE:

	
April 29, 2011













	
MAKER:

	
RICHFIELD OIL & GAS COMPANY













	
HOLDER:

	
MACKOV INVESTMENTS LIMITED













	
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:

	
$200,000













	
INTEREST:

	
$50,000













	
DUE DATE:

	
June 29, 2011












In exchange for an additional loan made on or about June 3, 2011, the parties hereby agree that the Note shall be amended as follows:








	
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:

	
$243,750













	
INTEREST:

	
$56,250













	
TOTAL DUE:

	
$300,000 payable on or before the Due Date of June 29, 2011.












Except as amended hereby the Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands, effective as of June 3, 2011.








	
HOLDER:

	  	
MAKER:


	
MACKOV INVESTMENTS LIMITED

	  	
RICHFIELD OIL & GAS COMPANY


	  	  	  
	
By:

	
   /s/ Glenn MacNeil

	  	  	
By:

	
    /s/ J. David Gowdy

	  
	  	
       Glenn MacNeil

	  	
  

	  	
       J. David Gowdy, President & CEO
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of CM Finance Inc (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rocco DelGuercio, the Chief Financial 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/    Rocco
DelGuercioName:

Rocco DelGuercioDate:

September 6, 2017
| | Exhibit 32.1
| | ------------

CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Profile Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2010 (the Report), I, Henry E. Gemino, Chief Executive Officer and 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, 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

|                            |  |                                                    
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date:     February 16, 2010 |  | /s/     Henry E. Gemino                            
|                            |  | Henry E. Gemino                                    
|                            |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                            |  |                                                    
|                            |  |                                                    

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification
of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

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



In connection
with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of CM Finance Inc (the “Registrant”), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rocco DelGuercio, the Chief Financial 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/    Rocco
        DelGuercio
| | Name: |  | Rocco DelGuercio               
| | Date: |  | August 30, 2016
*After examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Counsel concedes that he raises his argument here only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 2, 2006 *

Decided November 3, 2006 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 05-3887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. SERGIO DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 03 CR 935 Amy J. St. Eve, Judge

.
O R D E R Sergio Diaz was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which he argues is unconstitutional. He first made this argument when he moved to dismiss his indictment, asserting that the statute is unconstitutional under the commerce clause because it criminalizes the possession of firearms that do not substantially affect interstate commerce. See United States UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-3887 Page 2
v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court denied Diaz’s motion without explanation. A jury subsequently found Diaz guilty. Afterward, Diaz moved for acquittal or a new trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure renewing, among other things, his arguments from his earlier motion. The district court denied this motion without explanation. On appeal, Diaz reiterates his argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it lacks the required nexus to interstate commerce under Lopez

. Diaz admits that the precedent of this circu it is against him and that he raises the argument only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. We have consistently rejected Diaz’s argument. See, e.g., United States v. Van Sach , 458 F.3d 694, 703 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Olson , 408 F.3d 366, 372-73 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lemons , 302 F.3d 769, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bass , 325 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir. 2003). If Lopez does invalidate § 922(g)(1), it is for the Supreme Court to so hold. Lemons , 302 F.3d at 773. AFFIRMED
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00116

- CR v.

Jorge Louis Verde, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 11

- 23705 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 23 , 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0913n.06 Filed: November 18, 2005 No. 04-6040 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MYRON JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: RYAN, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Myron Jefferson entered a guiltyplea to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after the district court denied his motion to suppress ev idence. Jefferson now seeks to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress, contending that his wa s a conditional guilty plea in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The government counters th at Jefferson waived his right to appellate review by failing to comply with the dictates of the rule—preserving in writing the specific issue to be appealed. We agree with the government. This court strictly enforces the requireme nt that the conditional plea be in writing. United States v. Herrera , 265 F.3d 349, 351-52 (6th. Cir 2001) (holding th at a counsel’s oral statements at a plea hearing—that the plea being entered was conditional—did not satisfy the Rule 11 writing requirement). Jefferson relies on the written “Minutes” from his change-of-plea hearing asNo. 04-6040 USA v. Jefferson

- 2 - satisfying the writing requirement. But since Rule 11(a)(2) “places an affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges” in writing, United States v. Pickett , 941 F.2d 411, 416 (6th Cir. 1991)(first emphasis added), the clerical notation cannot suffice to preserve Jefferson’s right to appeal the suppression order. We thus dismiss Jefferson’s appeal of the denial of his suppression motion. As for Jefferson’s appeal of his sentence, we rejected his exact Apprendi -based argument in United States v. Barnett , 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, we vacate and remand for resentencing, with the acquiescence of the government, under the prevailing non-mandatory regime. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
#### Mario Antonio Quan VILLATORO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72446.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Mario Antonio Quan Villatoro, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.

*759CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Mario Antonio Quan Villatoro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, *see Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Quan-Villatoro’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See id.*(The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”)

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s November 22, 2005, order denying Quan Villatoro’s previous motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition this court to review that decision. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186,1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part AND DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,376,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,891,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                   319,860
<INVENTORY>                                  5,345,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,504,533
<PP&E>                                      24,512,289
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,470,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,729,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,132,038
<BONDS>                                      7,608,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,450
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,085,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,729,546
<SALES>                                     23,325,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,325,855
<CGS>                                       18,576,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,576,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,855,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,430,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,369,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,858
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,483,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,483,488)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>