alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |
| 1.     | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of A10 Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2018; and |
|   |   |   |   |
| 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. |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   | Date: | April 25, 2019 | By: /s/ Lee Chen |   |   |
|   |   | Lee Chen |   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 22, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1829

Lower Tribunal No. F05-18471

________________

Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.

Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB of South Street Financial Corp. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                  |  |                              |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                  |  | SOUTH STREET FINANCIAL CORP.
|                  |  |                             
|Date: May 7, 2004 |  | By:                          |  | /s/ R. Ronald Swanner                
|                  |  |                              |  | R. Ronald Swanner                    
|                  |  |                              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |                             
|Date: May 7, 2004 |  | By:                          |  | /s/ Christopher F. Cranford          
|                  |  |                              |  | Christopher F. Cranford              
|                  |  |                              |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,795,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,055,162
<PP&E>                                         371,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                 225,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,456,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,724
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,280
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,352,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,456,738
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,347
<CGS>                                           69,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (204,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (204,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (204,322)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
#### Rafael Ramirez SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71327.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Rafael Ramirez Salazar, Perris, 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 *974of 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 **

Rafael Ramirez Salazar petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The evidence Ramirez Salazar presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same hardship grounds as his 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 he 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 question presented is essentially the same discretionary [hardship] issue originally decided.”).

In his opening brief, Ramirez Salazar does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his motion was untimely to the extent it sought reconsideration. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2587 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any 
     employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any 
                             circumstance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Jobs From Government 
Interference Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.

    Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``: 
Provided further, That the Board shall have no power to order an 
employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate 
any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any 
relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change 
regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in 
production or other business operations, or to require any employer to 
make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, 
facility, or location''.

SEC. 3. RETROACTIVITY.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any complaint for 
which a final adjudication by the National Labor Relations Board has 
not been made by the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any 
     employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any 
                             circumstance.
```
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 2, 2008 *

Decided April 10, 2008

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 07

‐ 2805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

KATHY L. PERRY,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 05

‐ CR

‐ 101

William C. Griesbach,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Kathy Perry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846, 841(a)(1). In December 2005 she was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, the

statutory minimum since the offense involved at least five grams. See id. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii).

At sentencing the prosecutor told the district court that Perry had provided information NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 07

‐ 2805 Page 2

about a fugitive coconspirator, and that the government anticipated filing a post

‐ sentence

motion for a reduced sentence if he was arrested and prosecuted. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35(b).

The government never filed a Rule 35(b) motion, so Perry, by then pro se, filed one herself

more than a year after sentencing. The district court denied Perry’s motion because she

received the statutory minimum, the government had not moved to reduce that term, and it

was too late—so the court thought—for the government to file a motion under Rule 35(b).

Perry appeals.

Rule 35(b) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence for substantial assistance

only “upon the government’s motion.” F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35(b)(1); see Wade v. United States

,

504 U.S. 181, 185

‐ 86 (1992). The government must act within a year of sentencing unless the

defendant’s information was not known or did not become useful until later. F ED

. R. C RIM

.

P. 35(b)(2). Here, the government has yet to file a Rule 35(b) motion for Perry’s substantial

assistance. And Perry did not allege any breach of promise, unconstitutional motive, or bad

faith on the government’s part. See Wade

, 504 U.S. at 185

‐ 87; United States v. Wilson

, 390 F.3d

1003, 1011

‐ 13 (7th Cir. 2004). The district court in this case thus had no choice but to deny

Perry’s motion.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-1308) of our report dated February 14, 1997,
on our audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Pete's Brewing Company as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for the years ended
December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.



                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



San Jose, California
March 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                       308
<INVENTORY>                                      3,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,353
<PP&E>                                         790,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 840,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,543
<BONDS>                                        455,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           189
<OTHER-SE>                                     319,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   840,817
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,859
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,165
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,092
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-155048, 333-163454, 333-117558 and 333-132031) and all documents to be filed under Sections 13(a), 13(c), 14, or 15(d) of the Exchange
Act after the date of filing of such registration statement and until all of the common stock to which such registration statement relates has been sold or the offering is otherwise terminated of our report dated March 2, 2010 except for
note 24, which is as of March 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/ Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP
|Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP    
|                                 
|March 15, 2010
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15422

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00151-CR-T-30-EAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ROGER MIGUEL BORJAS-ANDRADE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(July 25, 2008)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Miguel Borjas-Andrade appeals his sentence of 87 months’
2

imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession

with intent to distribute, at least five kilograms of cocaine while onboard a vessel

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2,

21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506. Borjas-Andrade

argues that the district court improperly increased his offense level for possession

of a dangerous weapon pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).

Under the Guidelines, if a defendant possesses a dangerous weapon in

relation to a drug offense, his offense level is increased by 2 levels. U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). The commentary provides that the weapon enhancement should be

applied if a weapon was present, unless it was clearly improbable that the weapon

was connected to the offense, and gives an unloaded hunting rifle in a residential

closet as an example of clear improbability. Id. comt. n.3. 

Here, the district court properly applied the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for

the presence of dangerous weapons, because two weapons were available to protect

the 4,200 pounds of cocaine onboard the subject vessel. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 19, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 357 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-200, CP2017-303.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19849 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31

 

SEMT 2013-8

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Garnet W. Kanouse, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Solutions, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian, CitiMortgage, Inc. as Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 27, 2020

 

 

/S/  Garnet W. Kanouse

Signature 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2473 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2473

To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte River, North 
          Carolina, to change the authorized depth to 8 feet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2011

 Mr. McIntyre introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte River, North 
          Carolina, to change the authorized depth to 8 feet.

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

SECTION 1. SHALLOTTE RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

    The project for the improvement of the Shallotte River, North 
Carolina, authorized by the Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 807), is 
modified to change the authorized maintenance depth to 8 feet.
                                 <all>
```