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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DWAYNE MCARTHUR MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge (2:07-cr-01118-DCN-2)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Dwayne McArthur Mitchell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). The conditional plea preserved Mitchell’s right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Mitchell was sentenced to 110 months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Mitchell has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Mitchell was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a reply brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the legal determinations

de novo. United States v. Wilson , 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government. United States v. Uzenski , 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude the district

23 court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mitchell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mitchell. 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         221,934
<SECURITIES>                                   107,348
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               380,721
<PP&E>                                         136,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 649,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,583
<BONDS>                                        355,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          280,803
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,527
<OTHER-SE>                                   (115,407)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   649,707
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,067
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jean-Pierre Dallaire Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 19, 2007



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire                         
|Jean-Pierre Dallaire Principal Accounting
Officer
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-LC12 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

  

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, as the 
                 ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT ANGEL MENDEZ POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Angel Mendez Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, as the 
                 ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.
```
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date:  February 14, 2006                      /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Henry E. Gemino
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00116-CR

DENZEL DREDON JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1927324

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Denzel Dredon Jackson has filed an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the 

8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County. Jackson was represented by appointed counsel at 

trial. Although appointed trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on Jackson’s behalf, the trial court 

has since granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. There is no indication in the clerk’s record that 

new counsel was appointed to represent Jackson on appeal.

In light of these circumstances, we abate this case to the trial court so that it may conduct 

whatever hearings are necessary to make the following determinations: (1) whether Jackson still 

desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, (2) whether Jackson remains indigent and entitled to 

the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. If the trial court determines that Jackson

remains indigent, then it shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal.

The trial court may enter any orders necessary to implement these directives. Any 

hearing shall be conducted by the trial court within fifteen days of the date of this order. 

Appropriate orders and findings shall be sent to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s 

record within ten days of the date of the hearing contemplated by this order. The reporter’ record 

of any hearing shall be filed with this Court within ten days of the date of the hearing 

contemplated by this order.

All appellate timetables are stayed and will resume on our receipt of the supplemental 

appellate record.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 9, 2020
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J. R. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER, J.S. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JULIE B. WALLING

HOSPITALMAN (E

- 3), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400385

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 29 July 2014

. **Military Judge:** CDR Robert P. Monahan, Jr., JAGC, USN

. **Convening Authority:** Commanding Officer, Walter Reed

National Military Medical Center (Navy), Bethesda, MD

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendat ion:**  CPT N.A. West, JA,

USA

. **For Appellant:** Maj John J. Stephens, USMC.

**For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

**31 March 2015** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**------------------------------------------------- --** 

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fatin Johnson, Appellant.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion by Legal Aid Society et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
a6609178ex10-2.htm



Exhibit 10.2


November 4, 2010







PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL












VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS


In-Q-Tel, Inc.


2107 Wilson Blvd., 11th Floor


Arlington, VA  22201


 




	
Re:

	
Advanced Photonix, Inc. /Picometrix, LLC/In-Q-Tel, Inc.


	  	
Development Agreement and Royalty Agreement









 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain (x) proposed development agreement by and among Advanced Photonix, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“API”), its wholly-owned subsidiary, Picometrix, LLC (“Picometrix”), and In-Q-Tel, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“IQT”) (the “Development Agreement”), (y) proposed royalty agreement by and among API, Picometrix and IQT (the “Royalty Agreement”, and together with the Development Agreement, the “Commercial Agreements”) and (z) Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 4, 2010, by and between API and IQT (the “SPA”).


 


On the date hereof, each of us has executed the SPA and you have delivered to us to be held in escrow the definitive forms of each of the Commercial Agreements, which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, along with executed counterparts to each such agreement (the “Signature Pages”).  In the event that (i) NYSE Amex approves API’s additional listing application covering the shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, to be issued in connection with the SPA and (ii) each party’s respective closing conditions set forth in Section 5 of the SPA have been either satisfied or waived by the party in whose favor such closing conditions run (clauses (i) and (ii), the “Escrow Release Conditions”), (1) the definitive forms of each of the Commercial Agreements and the Signature Pages shall automatically be released from escrow, (2) API and Picometrix shall execute and deliver to you counterparts to each Commercial Agreement, and (3) each such Commercial Agreement shall be dated and become effective as of the date the Escrow Release Conditions have been satisfied.   In the event that the Escrow Release Conditions are not satisfied, API (A) hereby agrees to promptly return the definitive forms of each of the Commercial Agreements and the Signature Pages to you, and (B) acknowledges and agrees the Commercial Agreements shall be null and void and of no legal effect.


 




	  	 
Very truly yours,


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	  	By:  	
/s/Richard D. Kurtz

	  
	
 

	Name:  	
Richard D. Kurtz

	  
	
 

	Title: 	
Chief Executive Officer and Director

	  









 


58
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0471 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CARESSA JILL HARDY, aka GLENN LEE DIBLEY,

Defendant 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 May 3 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 29 2021

03/29/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0471
#### Victorio CURIEL; Lina Curiel Meza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70862.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

*973Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Victorio Curiel, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

CAC-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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victorio Curiel and Lina Curiel Meza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence the Curiéis presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See id.*at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (Internal quotations and brackets omitted).

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the Curiéis did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their argument that the BIA denied them due process by failing to consider and address the entirety of the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. *See Fernandez,*439 F.3d at 603-04.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### fcfrti douflT OfAPPFAL& ,OijEQtL CwoT Or QjUhKxtte^ App&ks>



### fiugnu }-Tfiift& 181/1 

# Jtffl&fc JUN 222015 J^ZS-lf 

## (jft&Jhifi C CfM-Sbrf&k&to. dAi^e^b. y]o?- y//£3-M 6f) 4^;t^p lli.r ^/g/g' &ft7%f>\i<ag, 7^s %97ft 

### -w^hm -^-tJsa-Matz— ^htM^JhtAL^i
E»Utl<?£r> 9iert6g Hmo NW 'FkOSes TteFEM^ j3&_&3£g£LcfeL

3cLjh!^ffimmc*L-oiE^m£- £m&T^ sm^p_jrihs_ij£]T0L~j^o bexu <sms& JMadfcLBsdSAL 3^L#tsc)_eFQ0ffii^nter you^iJorif^M^c^xk pti MV Monads. 

## £iA£m£Uit o.t\ Mui£^_toea;TiM^ 

### ^upm/A_L^&L}.&o& fAfen f2^ 

### j^U^£jJml^6L6K. Mk.&mJtmf k\>6Ti*rfttfo I9ln iSE&BZjc&LM* 1>*xftsii&/rt Ogza? 

### (tmmw^Wyt$_2$598-

### Cau^EjkMm-n nw-iaJmX iiJikjCtarjC^ AisrjjsL^Tm^ 

### C^mtbiA L.Cjmzs s&

### ^mJ*$Mz_OEJimfizoiW (\PP£Ab |4n. AS--f3'm4±-riJL TBjh^djwse \\n. fm-ntiZfb-fA 

### l>a-m (Wriry -j£xfr6 

### Jfe_U_^r_Sku^^^ 1fl Tlfe Mo^Qg-At»L£r Junkies £>F r[4F CnuoX Of Z'iZihM^M APlfefli6

- 

### LflfvAFS hW>} feof?^/A L.lflME^^ffer/ar/o^F/g- AkLQ F<l56 T>jk> i^ptiokj F^ F&riri6t4E(L S\W& the gonpT of h?em^ t~H£ mi^ulx^ *

Assets 75 aW /ki AT-rog/sigv/ 7^ RGPtzesmr fter/rtnite&'s ^-xtoEsr TkJ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of First
Keystone Financial, Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the
Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

/s/ Donald S. Guthrie
--------------------------------------------------------
Name: Donald S. Guthrie
Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 29, 2004
EX-35.7
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
200 West Street
New York, New York 10282


RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
    Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ14

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO FIRST SPECIAL SERVICE FORCE. 

6 Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is 

7 authorized to be used on February 3, 2015, for a cere8 mony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the 

9 First Special Service Force collectively, in recognition of 

10 its superior service during World War II. Physical prep11 arations for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried 

12 out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect 

13 of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the Senate January 8, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

service during World War II. cial Service Force, in recognition of its superior the Congressional Gold Medal to the First SpeCapitol Visitor Center for a ceremony to present