alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Coroado REED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50172.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Paul Lawrence Starita, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David P. Curnow, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Elizabeth Armena Missakian, Law Office of Elizabeth A. Missakian, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

*713Mark Coroado Reed appeals from the $10,000 fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Although Reed discussed his financial condition at sentencing, he did so solely in the context of explaining why he absconded from pretrial supervision; he did not object at any time to the imposition of a fine. Thus, review is for plain error. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008).

The district court selected a fine at the bottom of the Guidelines range, which was significantly lower than what was recommended in the presentence report. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3) (stating a fine Guideline range of $10,000 to $100,000 for an offense level of 25). On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred. See *Dallman,*533 F.3d at 761 (plain error is error that is plain and that affects the defendant’s “substantial rights”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edwin Kwong, certify
that:

1.                  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Livestar Entertainment
          Group, Inc. (the Registrant);

2.     Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based on
my knowledge, the           financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly           report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results           of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods           presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I am
responsible for establishing and           maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules           13a-14) for the registrant and have:

a)       
          designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
          information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
          is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
          period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)       
          evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
          quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)       
          presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
          disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
          Date; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
          registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
          directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)       
          all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
          which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
          registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)       
          any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
          who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

6.     I
          have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes
          in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: May 24, 2004

---

Edwin KwongChief Financial
Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 349 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 349

   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                               Nebraska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

  Mr. Terry (for himself, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, and Mr. Fortenberry) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                               Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
district of Nebraska.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--In order that the table 
contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will 
reflect the change in the number of judgeships authorized by subsection 
(a), such table is amended by striking the item relating to Nebraska 
and inserting the following:

        ``Nebraska.............................................    4''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, 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 theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR3 Trust (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 ofa  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 Form10–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 agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 anexhibit 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. 

 

Date:  March 15, 2007

 

  /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann_________Name:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 3/31/00 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,162
<PP&E>                                           1,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              108
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,908
<SALES>                                          4,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,698
<CGS>                                            3,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,468)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,468)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,468)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Cobb, Petitioner, v Bruce Yelich, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 297]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the *1236presence of THC. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis results, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination *(see Matter of Cagle v Fischer,*108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]; *Matter of Sutton v Prack,*107 AD3d 1250, 1250 [2013]). Further, the request for urinalysis form and the testimony of the correction officers involved established that petitioner’s urine sample was properly secured and that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the urine sample *(see Matter of Polite v Goord,*22 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2005]; *Matter of Saif’Ul’Bait v Goord,*15 AD3d 703, 704-705 [2005]). We reject petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied the testimony of certain witnesses, as such testimony would have been redundant *(see Matter of Cody v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1651, 1651-1652 [2011]; *Matter of Warren v Fischer,*63 AD3d 1466, 1467 [2009]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased against him, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Trump Empire State Partners, Appellant, v Empire State Building Associates et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 891]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 29, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract claims were properly dismissed because they will be addressed in other litigation (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]). Since substantial identity of parties *(see, Employers Ins. v Primerica Holdings,*199 AD2d 178) and “essential” identity of issue *(see, Parker v Rich,*140 AD2d 177) were demonstrated, dismissal of the agreement-based claims was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, Morgulas v Yudell Realty,*161 AD2d 211, 212). The claims sounding in tortious waste are insufficient, since, *inter alia,*there has been no pleading of damage to the building that changes the nature of the property *(see, Garland v Titan*W. *Assocs.,*147 AD2d 304, 310). The claims based on Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 require a detailed pleading of fraud and the remaining claims to set aside conveyances required a “conveyance made without fair consideration” and the presence of “creditors and * * * other persons who become creditors during the continuance of [the subject] business” (Debtor and Creditor Law § 274), none of which plaintiff has pleaded adequately. We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



August 30, 2004



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J. Kernan Crotty, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to
the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full
compliances 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/ J. Kernan Crotty                 
|J. Kernan Crotty                     
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 30, 2004
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

Incorporated in the Cayman Islands 

Hailiang Education Group Inc. 

SPECIMEN 
 This is to
certify that 
  

					
	 is / are the registered shareholders of:

			
	 No. of Shares
	 	Type of Share	 	Par Value
			
		 	Ordinary	 	US$ 0.0001
			
	 Date of Record
	 	Certificate Number	 	% Paid
			
		 		 	100.00

 The above shares are subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and transferrable in
accordance therewith. 
  

							
	  
	  	        Director        	  	  
	  	Director / Secretary
#### EQUITY INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Karin LENZ, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.

No. 10-14032.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 1, 2011.

Eric Allan Lee, Lee & Amtzis, P.L., Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.

*941April Iris Halle, Halle Law Firm PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee.

Randolph L. Hutter, Thomas F. Koelbl, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.

Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Equity Investment Partners, LP appeals the district court’s final judgment, entered after a bench trial, holding that the United States’ federal tax lien on certain real property located in Florida has priority over Equity’s mortgages on the same property under 26 U.S.C. § 6323. After hearing witness testimony at trial, the district court made adverse credibility findings that resolved the factual issues in this case, and to which we defer. Based thereupon, we find no reversible error in the district court’s final judgment in favor of the United States.

AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 99.9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Joseph Longpre, Chief Financial 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:

(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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

March 31, 2014
    /s/
      Joseph LongpreJoseph LongpreChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Judith Michaels-Dailey et al., Respondents, v Charles Shamoian, Defendant, and Abdul Samiy, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 199]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Abdul Samiy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment dismissing that branch of the complaint insofar as asserted against him as relates to treatment rendered by him prior to May 10, 1988.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and that branch of the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant as relates to treatment rendered by him prior to May 10, 1988, is dismissed.

The plaintiff Judith Michaels-Dailey consulted with the appellant from 1984 to October 1985 and then from May 10, 1988, *431to July 1992. In December 1994 the plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action against the appellant and a codefendant. Thereafter, the appellant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that any claims arising from visits prior to May 10,1988, were barred by the two-year and six-month Statute of Limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions. The Supreme Court held that there was an issue of fact as to whether the appellant’s treatment fell under the continuous treatment doctrine and thus denied the motion. We disagree.

The two-year and six-month Statute of Limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions is tolled until after a plaintiffs last treatment when the course of treatment, including the wrongful acts or omissions, has run continuously and is related to the original condition or complaint (CPLR 214-a; *Massie v Crawford,*78 NY2d 516; *Nykorchuck v Henriques,*78 NY2d 255). However, since the gap between October 1985 and May 10, 1988, exceeded the applicable Statute of Limitations period, the continuity of treatment was broken, and the appellant thus demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Concha v Local 1115 Empls. Union Welfare Trust Fund,*216 AD2d 348, 350; *Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group,*214 AD2d 150, 153, *affd*88 NY2d 904). Moreover, it is clear that Michaels-Dailey’s first series of visits to the appellant resulted in the conclusion that “she would [not] require any specific treatment at that time”. Therefore, the visits prior to May 10, 1988, did not produce a course of treatment which could have been continued or resumed when Michaels-Dailey again began consulting with the appellant on that date *(see, Nykorchuck v Henriques, supra,*at 259; *see also, Gordon v Magun,*83 NY2d 881).

Accordingly, the malpractice claims which the plaintiffs have asserted against the appellant arising from Michaels-Dailey’s association with him prior to May 10, 1988, are time-barred and must be dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Heather Bugalla, Respondent, v Salvatore Calcagno, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 624]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 24, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition to modify an order of the same court (Orlando, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated April 7, 2010, made on the consent of the parties, to the extent of making certain reductions in the father’s parenting time, and denied the father’s petition to modify the same order so as to award him sole custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order dated May 24, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

“Where parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, ‘it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children’ ” *(Anonymous 2011-1 v Anonymous 2011-2,*102 AD3d 640, 641 [2013], quoting *Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette,*262 AD2d 804, 805 [1999]). When making such a determination, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]).

Here, the Family Court’s determination reducing the father’s *872visitation time with the children in order to accommodate the children’s increasingly busy schedules and extracurricular activities is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Gorniok v*Zeledon-Mussio, 82 AD3d 767, 769 [2011]; *Matter of Perez v Hughes,*33 AD3d 1008 [2006]).

Moreover, although there was evidence that the mother had interfered with the father’s visitation, under the particular circumstances of this case, and in light of the fact that the children have been living with the mother all of their lives, a change in custody would not be in the best interests of the children *(see Matter of Ross v Ross,*96 AD3d 856, 857-858 [2012]; *Cervera v Bressler,*90 AD3d 803, 805-806 [2011]; *Matter of VanDusen v Riggs,*77 AD3d 1355 [2010]).

Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### IRIS S. LYNN *v.*RODERICK A. LYNN

(AC 32861)

Robinson, Alvord and Schaller, Js.

Argued February 1

officially released February 28, 2012

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.