alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Un ited States District 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3133

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank James Cotton, also known * District Court for the as Frank Cottin, Frank Johnson, * Western District of Missouri. Arne Cotton, Mark Johnson, * Mark Wells, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 24, 1996 Filed: May 31, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Frank Jam es Cotton pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a f irearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), and th e dist rict court sentenced him to 180 months imprisonment and five year s 1 sup ervisedrelease, and ordered him to pay a $2,000 fine. On appeal , counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. First , we reject the assertion that inclusion of information in a presentence report regarding a defendant's pending charges and previou s arrests violates the Due Process Clause. We also reject

### -2-

as conclusory and mer itless the contention that the government's decision to detain Cotton for the instant offense was motivated by racial prejudice . Nex t, we reject the assertion that preindictment delay warrant s dismissal of Cotton's indictment. There is no indication that the tim e lapse between the off ense and the indictment resulted in actual prejudice to Cott on's defense, or that the delay was intentional and improperl y motivated. See Unite d States v. Scoggins , 992 F.2d 164, 166-67 (8th Cir. 1993) (when defendant is indicted within statute of limitations, defendant must show delay substantially prejudiced defense and governmen t inten tionallydelayed either to gain tactical advantage or harass) . Finally, we reject the argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for dismissal of the indictment based on alleged preindictmen t delay. See Dyer v. United States , 23 F.3d 1424, 1426 (8th Cir. 1994) (no ineffec tive assistance if claim defendant alleges counsel should hav e pursued is meritless). After reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
___________

No. 95-3702

___________

Mark A. Morris, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

FSC Securities Corporation, *

a Georgia Corporation; Edward * [UNPUBLISHED]

Wisner; Richard Roe; John Doe, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

No. 95-3876

___________

Mark A. Morris, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

FSC Securities Corporation, *

a Georgia Corporation, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Edward Wisner; Richard Roe; *

John Doe, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

 Submitted: October 24, 1996

 Filed: December 5, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
 1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District

Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Mark A. Morris appeals the September 26, 1995 order of the

District Court1 directing Morris to return certain discovery

materials to their original source and directing Morris's counsel

to refrain from any use of these materials to support any pending

or future litigation. FSC Securities Corporation cross-appeals the

portion of the District Court's order in which the court found that

it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a confidentiality agreement

signed by the parties.

Having considered the record and the briefs and arguments of

the parties, we summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Daniel Generelli, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Baynon
     International Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, base on
     our 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.


Date: November 1, 2005


/s/ DANIEL GENERELLI
-------------------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)

                                       10
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBig Cat Energy Corporation(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period end ofOctober 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Timothy Barritt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 9th day of December, 2008.                                                                                                                
|   

TIMOTHY BARRITT
Timothy BarrittPresident and Chief Executive Officer





















-26-

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman\u2019s Luncheon Address at the Marine Log\u2019s Global Greenship Conference","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gxy8IRjc3X\"><a href=\"\/chairmans-luncheon-address-at-the-marine-logs-global-greenship-conference\/\">Chairman\u2019s Luncheon Address at the Marine Log\u2019s Global Greenship Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairmans-luncheon-address-at-the-marine-logs-global-greenship-conference\/embed\/#?secret=gxy8IRjc3X\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman\u2019s Luncheon Address at the Marine Log\u2019s Global Greenship Conference” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"gxy8IRjc3X\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Juan Manuel CERVANTE, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-50248

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 2010.

Juan Manuel Cervante, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

*887Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Manuel Cerrante, federal prisoner # 36300-177, filed in the district court a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that he has been deprived of benefits provided to other prisoners in light of his immigration status, including a possible one-year reduction of his sentence after completion of a drug treatment program under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) and placement in a less restrictive facility at the end of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). The district court dismissed Cervante’s habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that his claims involved the conditions of his confinement and thus should be presented in a civil rights action. Cerrante now seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal in order to challenge the district court’s adverse ruling. We grant the motion for leave to proceed IFP. Additionally, given our determination of the subject-matter jurisdiction question, we dispense with further briefing of the merits of Cer-vante’s claims.

Cervante’s challenges to his inability to receive a one-year sentence reduction after completion of a drug treatment program and to his ineligibility for placement in a halfway house or other less restrictive confinement designed to prepare a prisoner for reentry into society affect the execution of his sentence. Thus, such claims may be raised under § 2241. *See Rublee v. Fleming,*160 F.3d 213, 214-17 (5th Cir.1998); *United States v. Cleto,*956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1992). As a result, we vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

IFP GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 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.
#### Gurinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72623.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 1, 2008.

Garish Sarin, for Petitioner.

Kiley L. Kane, Lisa M. Arnold, Mary Jane Candaux, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gurinder Singh, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s findings and reasoning, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. *See Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2005). We review for substantial evidence, reversing only if the evidence compels the result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The inconsistencies, assuming they exist, between Singh’s application and his hearing testimony regarding the police’s statement to his father, and the amount of time he lived in Bombay, either do not enhance his claims, or are minor and do not go to the heart of his claims. *See Wang v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2003). The IJ’s doubts about the note from Singh’s doctor were purely conjeetur*648al, and the IJ failed to address Singh’s explanation for the note’s grammatical errors and misspellings. *See Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 886-87 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *See id.*

We grant the petition for review and remand for the agency to consider whether, taking Singh’s testimony as true, he has shown eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 284 

To require uniformed officers of the United States Capitol Police to utilize 

body-worn cameras while on duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. STANTON (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. COHEN, Ms. 

ESCOBAR, Mr. SWALWELL, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. HAYES, and Mr. FOSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require uniformed officers of the United States Capitol 

Police to utilize body-worn cameras while on duty. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Require USCP to Uti5 lize Body-Worn Cameras Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 284 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING UNIFORMED UNITED STATES CAPITOL 

2 POLICE OFFICERS TO UTILIZE BODY-WORN 

3 CAMERAS WHILE ON DUTY. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Each uniformed officer of the 

5 United States Capitol Police whose job duties include 

6 interacting with the general public shall utilize a body7 worn camera and ensure that the body-worn camera is ac8 tivated while on duty. 

9 (b) EXCEPTION FOR OFFICERS ON PERSONAL PRO10 TECTION DETAIL.—Subsection (a) does not apply to an 

11 officer during any time in which the officer is serving on 

12 a personal protection detail. 

13 (c) REGULATIONS.—The Capitol Police Board shall 

14 promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry 

15 out this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**




**Certification**




I,
      Terry
      L. McCoy, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of First Horizon Asset
      Securities Inc (the Depositor) do hereby 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 First
      Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-1 (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
      upon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement 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 Bank of New York.




**First
                Horizon Asset Securities Inc., as Depositor**By:
            /s/
                Terry L. McCoyTerry
                L. McCoy,Executive
                Vice President
              (Senior
                Officer of the Depositor in charge ofSecuritization)




Date:
        March 26, 2007
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, 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 Alternative Loan Trust 2006-8T1 (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.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) 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 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: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ------------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration