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

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Gerard Poliquin,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-22506 Filed 10-12-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro ROJO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20366

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Pedro Rojo, Jr., Houston, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Rojo, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rojo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. The alternative motion for a hearing is DENIED.

The record reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Although the record shows that the district court orally imposed and intended to impose a total fine of $2,000, the written judgment also states that a $2,000 fine was “imposed as to each of Counts 1, 3, and 4” to reach the total fine of $2,000. The case is therefore REMANDED for the correction of this clerical error. Fed. R.Crim. P. 36.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ivan Alfonso Villarreal URIBE, also known as Chino, also known as Juan Montelongo-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20738

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 8, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark J. Ash, Mark Ash & Associates, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ivan Alfonso Villarreal Uribe, McRae, GA, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ivan Alfonso Villarreal Uribe has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Villarreal Uribe has filed a response in the form of a brief. In accordance with this Court’s order, counsel filed a transcript of the sentencing hearing and further *Anders*briefing. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350*

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-204), the undersigned, Dr. Michael G. Cobb,
the Chief Financial Officer of Small Town Radio, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

(1)
The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the U.S. 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 the Company.

This
Certification is signed on October 15, 2002.

| |  | /s/MICHAEL G. COBBDr. Michael G. Cobb
Chief Financial Officer
Small Town Radio, Inc.
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION 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 Poseidis,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  November  30,  2005,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Louis
Pardo dit Pardau, Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof) and I, John J.
McGovern,  Chief  Financial  Officer (or  equivalent  thereof)  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.







By: /s/ Louis Pardo dit Pardau
        Louis Pardo dit Pardau
        Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)

By: /s/ John J. McGovern
        John J. McGovern
        Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)

January 23, 2006
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>William Hooper, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), rendered February 27, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed driving and disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), rendered February 27, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. At the plea proceeding, defendant pleaded guilty to unlicensed driving, a traffic infraction, and disorderly conduct, a violation, in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging, inter alia, several misdemeanor offenses. Defendant personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that he understood he was waiving the right to a trial, the right to present a defense and the right to confront the witnesses against him. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (<i>see Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238 [1969]), despite the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived (<i>see People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_02904.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Simmons</i>, 138 AD3d 520</a> [2016], <i>lv denied </i>27 NY3d 1139 [2016]).</p><p>In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (<i>see People v Conceicao </i>26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 20, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Edward Suydam, the Chief Executive Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.  /s/ Edward Suydam Edward Suydam Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Nano Mask, Inc.  August 1, 2011
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 14 - 00153
- CV IN RE ALVIE ROBINSON
Original Proceeding

ORDER
Relator, Alvie Robinson, requests in his Motion for Suspension of Appellate Rules, filed on June 26, 2014, that this Court suspend the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a) requirement to file multiple copies of his pleadings in this proceeding. Relator had previously filed a similar motion, which was granted by this Court on June 4, 2014, specific only to his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Relator’s motion, filed on June 26, 2014, was not served. A copy of all documents
pr esented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.5. This requirement includes original proceedingsIn re Robinson Page 2

such as this. However, we use Rule 2 to dispense with the service requirement for this motion and grant the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2. We remind relator that all future documents must be served on all parties to the proceeding. A copy of a document to be served is not required to be produced by machine; the copy served may be a duplicate hand

- written copy.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed December 31, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GUSTAVO TORRES-SANCHEZ, a/k/a 

Joel Gonzales, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 14-1176 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00372-RBJ-1) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Gustavo Torres-Sanchez pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry of a previously 

deported alien following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 

(b)(1) and was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. In his plea 

agreement, Mr. Torres-Sanchez waived his right to appeal his conviction and his 

sentence if it did not exceed the maximum statutory penalty of ten years of 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 19, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

imprisonment, did not depart or vary upwards from the applicable sentencing 

guidelines of eighteen to twenty-four months, and was not based on an offense level 

greater than that calculated by the parties. Despite this waiver, Mr. Torres-Sanchez 

filed a notice of appeal. 

 The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal 

based on United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per 

curiam).1

 In evaluating an appeal waiver, Hahn directs us to consider “(1) whether 

the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; 

(2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and 

(3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 

1325. Mr. Torres-Sanchez, through counsel, concedes that the appeal waiver is 

enforceable and that his appeal should be dismissed. We gave Mr. Torres-Sanchez 

an opportunity to file a pro se response. To date, he has not done so. 

 Upon our independent review of the parties’ filings, the plea agreement, and 

the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings, we conclude that 

Mr. Torres-Sanchez waived his right to bring this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the 

government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, and we dismiss this appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

 

1

 The government also requested that the case be remanded so that the written 

judgment could be corrected. Subsequently, the parties agreed that the judgment was 

correct and remand was unnecessary.
Exhibit 99.1  [radiant10k123110ex991001.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991002.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991003.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991004.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991005.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991006.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991007.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991008.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991009.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991010.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991011.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991012.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991013.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991014.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991015.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991016.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991017.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991018.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991019.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991020.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991021.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991022.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991023.jpg]   [radiant10k123110ex991024.jpg]
MultiSo-2014 10.31 EX 10.1












December 15, 2014 


Multi Solutions II, Inc.
4400 Biscayne Boulevard; 10th Floor
Miami, FL 33137


Re:    Amendment No. 4 to Revolving Credit Promissory Note


Reference is made to the Revolving Credit Promissory Note (the “Revolver”) dated April 23, 2012 in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree to increase the Commitment Amount, as defined in the Revolver, from $300,000 to $350,000 and extend the Maturity Date of the Revolver to December 31, 2017 from December 31, 2015.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 4 to the Revolving Credit Promissory Note to be duly executed and attested, all as of the date first written above.


BORROWER:


MUTLI SOLUTIONS II, INC., a Florida Corporation




By:    /s/ Robert M. Lundgren        
Name:    Robert M. Lundgren
Director


LENDER:


VECTOR GROUP LTD., a Delaware Corporation




By:    /s/ Marc N. Bell            
Name:    Marc N. Bell
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,046
<INVENTORY>                                     79,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,326
<PP&E>                                          55,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,874
<BONDS>                                         76,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,454
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,566
<SALES>                                        244,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,895
<CGS>                                          135,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (677)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (953)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (559)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (559)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR ALARCON-CUEVAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70108 

Agency No. A087-958-928 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Alarcon-Cuevas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen 

removal proceedings and reissue its previous decision reinstating his voluntary 

departure period. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70108 

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and reissue. HernandezVelasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely AlarconCuevas’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where he 

filed it 18 months after his final order of removal, and he failed to comply with the 

procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing 

requirements for equitable tolling on account of ineffective assistance of counsel); 

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy 

Matter of Lozada requirements was fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

where ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).

Alarcon-Cuevas has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in 

declining to reissue its December 12, 2012, order, where the sole basis for his 

reissuance request was to reinstate his voluntary departure period, and he does not 

challenge the BIA’s determination that it lacked authority to do so. See CorroBarragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest 

issue in opening brief resulted in waiver); cf. Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899, 

901 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA has reissued decisions where an alien has shown lack 

of notice of the decision). 
3 15-70108 

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Alarcon-Cuevas’s remaining 

contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         3,138
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         291
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               3,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         83,132
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           79,882
<LOANS>                                        149,647
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 247,829
<DEPOSITS>                                     207,168
<SHORT-TERM>                                   6,955
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5,312
<LONG-TERM>                                    6,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,587
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 247,829
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                9,691
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4,873
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               494
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               15,058
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             8,812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,478
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          5,580
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  830
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,041
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2,041
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (128)
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,195
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.37
<LOANS-NON>                                    0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,662
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  0
<RECOVERIES>                                   1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,493
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,493
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>