alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20787

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BAUDILLO ESPIRITUSANTO, also known as Wilson,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-875-8

--------------------

April 10, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Baudillo Espiritusanto was convicted of conspiracy with

intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 300 months’

imprisonment. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss

Espiritusanto’s appeal because he is a fugitive. Espiritusanto’s

attorney argues that Espiritusanto did not escape but, rather,

was inadvertently released from the custody of the Harris County

Sheriff’s Department after the dismissal of a state charge. The

attorney notes that, to date, Espiritusanto is not within the

custody of any law enforcement agency.
O R D E R

No. 01-20787

- 2 -

Given Espiritusanto’s absence and unknown whereabouts, his

appeal is dismissed. See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507

U.S. 234, 239-40 (1993); see also United States v. DelagarzaVillareal, 141 F.3d 133, 136-38 (5th Cir. 1997). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristina ESCARENO-VARELA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51222

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cristina Eseareno-Varela (Varela) appeals the 18-month sentence imposed fol*458lowing her guilty plea to importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. She argues that the district court clearly erred in denying her a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Varela contends that she was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense.

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2(b), a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 5.

Varela’s ongoing participation in importing multiple kilograms of marijuana provided an indispensable service to the drug-trafficking operation and was essential to its success. *See United States v. Brown,*54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir.1995); *see also United States v. Buenrostro,*868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989). Varela exclusively was responsible for transporting the marijuana across the border and insuring that the marijuana was dispatched effectively to its intended recipients in Kansas. Varela additionally was aware that the jalapeño cans contained a type and quantity of illegal narcotics, and she received $40 for each successful crossing. Thus, Varela directly profited from her knowing participation in drug importation activities.

Thus, the district court’s finding that Varela was not a minor participant was plausible in light of the record as a whole and therefore not clearly erroneous. *See Villanueva,*408 F.3d at 203-04. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *458published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Activeworlds Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Sean Deson, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

          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 results of
               operations of the Company.


                                                   /s/  Sean Deson
                                                   ---------------
                                                   Sean Deson,
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August  14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            664 - RAST 2006-A4



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of BF Acquisition Group V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William R. Colucci, Treasurer 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 15, 2008



/s/ William R. Colucci

William R. Colucci, Treasurer

BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of International Stem Cell
Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William B.
Adams, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:
      March 18, 2008
            
            By:
      /s/ William B. AdamsWilliam
      B. AdamsChief
      Financial Officer








This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Genius Brand International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rebecca D. Hershinger,
Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|September 29, 2016 | By: | /s/ Rebecca D. Hershinger                                                    | 
|------------------ | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                   |     | Rebecca D. Hershinger                                                        | 
|                   |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 274 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 274

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce 
   from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the 
  Exclusive Economic Zone except in accordance with a law authorizing 
                              such action.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2021

   Mr. Young (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Casten, and Ms. Norton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce 
   from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the 
  Exclusive Economic Zone except in accordance with a law authorizing 
                              such action.

    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 ``Keep Finfish Free Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZING FINFISH AQUACULTURE IN THE EEZ.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary 
of the Interior nor the Secretary of Commerce may issue any permit or 
in any other way authorize any person to conduct commercial finfish 
aquaculture operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United 
States (as established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 
1983), except in accordance with a law authorizing such action that is 
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24258]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-MA-2017-08; Docket No. 2017-0002, Sequence No. 20]


Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Requirement To Report Agency 
Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Data and Costs

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of FTR Bulletin 18-02, Requirement to Report Agency 
Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Data and Costs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform Federal agencies that 
FTR Bulletin 18-02, pertaining to the reporting of travel, 
transportation, and relocation data and costs is now available online 
at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

DATES: November 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of 
Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, 
at 202-219-2349, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#196d6b786f7c75697675707a60597e6a78377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e3a3c2f382b223e2122272d370e293d2f60292138">[email protected]</span></a>. Please cite 
Notice of FTR Bulletin 18-02.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707(c).

    Dated: October 27, 2017.
Allison Fahrenkopf Brigati,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy, General 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-24258 Filed 11-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Oscar Ulises MERCADO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73488.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 2008.*

Filed April 29, 2008.

Michael L. Jacob, Law Office of Michael L. Jacob, Bainbridge Island, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, OIL, Anthony C. Payne, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Ulises Mercado appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal due to being an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). Mercado argues that his conviction falls within the so-called “petty offense” exception for crimes where “the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted ... did not exceed imprisonment for one year and ... the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months,” and therefore does not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(ii).

Mercado was convicted of third-degree sodomy, a Class C felony under Oregon law. Or. Rev. St. § 163.385. By statute, “[t]he maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for a ... Class C felony” is 5 years. Or. Rev. St. § 161.605. Nevertheless, Mercado argues that to determine the maximum penalty possible for his crime we should, instead, look to the maximum sentence that he could have received under the Oregon Sentencing Guidelines, which he contends is 180 days, in light of his criminal history and the facts found in his case. Our precedent forecloses this argument. *See United States v. Parry,*479 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir.2007) (“[F]or purposes of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)[] the maxi*573mum sentence is the statutory maximum sentence for the offense [as supplied by Or. Rev. St. § 161.605], not the maximum sentence available in the particular case under the sentencing guidelines.”) (quoting *United States v. Murillo,*422 F.3d 1152, 1154 (9th Cir.2005)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
85 A.3d 480

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel, Rodney McCLINTON, Appellant v. Jerome W. WALSH, Superintendent at S.C.I. Dallas, Mrs. Kimberly A. Barkley, Board Secretary, Mr. Edward M. Marsico, Jr., District Attorney of Dauphin, County, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 18, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of February, 2014, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,418
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,626
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,917
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,336
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,877
<LOANS>                                        193,103
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,757
<DEPOSITS>                                     202,209
<SHORT-TERM>                                    48,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,963
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           252
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 269,757
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   7229
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1532
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    72
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,833
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,221
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,669
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,164
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  65
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,931
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,931
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,352
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.23
<LOANS-NON>                                        249
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    40
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,742
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       27
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,830
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,830
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Irene BLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-5615.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 28, 2008.

Matthew Lawton Bowling, Gullett, Combs & Branham, Hazard, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lexington, KY, for Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Irene Blair appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (“United States” or “COE”) on her premises liability claims brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Blair alleged in her complaint that the United States was liable for injuries she sustained after she slipped in standing water in the federally-owned parking lot of the Carr Creek Marina. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States because, under Kentucky law — the applicable law pursuant to the FTCA — the undisputed facts established that the standing water was an open-and-obvious hazard as a matter of law, and the COE did not have a duty to warn Blair of that condition or to protect her from it.

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs and counsels’ arguments, we conclude that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district court’s opinions carefully and correctly set out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulate the reasons underlying its decisions, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinions granting summary judgment and denying reconsideration, we AFFIRM.