alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Ervin LOPEZ, a/k/a Pullulo, a/k/a Peludo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7476.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.

Tony Ervin Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Ervin Lopez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for sentence reduction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) and his motion for sentence reduction under that rule. We affirm.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lopez’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction, he has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district court’s order.

With respect to the district court’s denial of the motion to compel, it is well-settled that whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion is a matter left to the Government’s discretion. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b); *United States v. Dixon,*998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir.1993). A court may remedy the Government’s refusal to move for a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) if: (1) the Government has obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for the reduction; or (2) the Government’s refusal to move for the reduc*224tion was based on an unconstitutional motive. *Wade v. United States,*504 U.S. 181, 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992).

After review of the record, we conclude that neither circumstance is present here. The plea agreement between Lopez and the Government clearly establishes that the decision whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion rested with the Government’s discretion, and Lopez did not claim in the motion to compel that the Government’s refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional motive.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Lopez’s motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
{"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":"Staff Report on U.S. Port Congestion Released","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oqjfXWFxus\"><a href=\"\/staff-report-on-u-s-port-congestion-released\/\">Staff Report on U.S. Port Congestion Released<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/staff-report-on-u-s-port-congestion-released\/embed\/#?secret=oqjfXWFxus\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Staff Report on U.S. Port Congestion Released” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"oqjfXWFxus\" 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"}
**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 WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.       By:           /s/ Victor E. Grijalva   Name: Victor E. Grijalva Title:   Vice President, Chief Financial           Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
November 12, 2004
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Simex Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:  1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Kjell I. Jagelid Kjell I. Jagelid, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Date: November 27, 2007
<PAGE>

                   EXHIBIT 32.1 -- SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-Q/A of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended June 30,
2004, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a) or
sec.15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pactiv
Corporation for the period then ended.

   /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
--------------------------------
Richard L. Wambold
Chairman, President, and Chief
Executive Officer

January 31, 2005
--------------------------------
Date

     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 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
Section 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.

                                        2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         236,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,254
<PP&E>                                         104,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (18,468)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     325,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,478
<SALES>                                         33,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,149
<CGS>                                           11,256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               795,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (765,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (765,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (765,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.12)



</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Privacy and Security Notice - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CmsXIhuVVR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/site-policies\/privacy-security-notice\/\">Privacy and Security Notice<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/site-policies\/privacy-security-notice\/embed\/#?secret=CmsXIhuVVR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Privacy and Security Notice” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"CmsXIhuVVR\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Thank you for visiting the FMC website and reviewing our Privacy and Security Policy, which is outlined below. Because it is our commitment to protect the privacy and security of your visit to the FMC\u2019s website, no personally-identifiable information is collected unless you choose to provide us with that information. Information the FMC Automatically Collects […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
84 A.3d 1058

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Raul DIAZ, Petitioner.

No. 166 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 29, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal *Nunc Pro Tunc*is DENIED.
**Exhibit 3.1**

**ARTICLESOF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**SANTA LUCIA BANCORP**

**ARTICLE I**

Thename of this corporation is: Santa Lucia Bancorp.

**ARTICLE II**

Thepurpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity forwhich a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law ofCalifornia other than the banking business, the trust business, or the practiceof a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California CorporationsCode.

**ARTICLEIII**

The name andaddress in this state of this corporation’s initial agent for service ofprocess is Mr. Larry H. Putnam, President and Chief Executive Officer, SantaLucia Bank, 7480 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California 93423.

**ARTICLE IV**

(a)           Thecorporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares designated “PreferredStock” and “Common Stock,” respectively. The number of shares of Preferred Stock authorized to be issued is20,000,000 and the number of shares of Common Stock authorized to be issued is20,000,000.

(b)           ThePreferred Stock may be divided into such number of series as the Board ofDirectors may determine.  The Board ofDirectors is authorized to determine and alter the rights, preferences,privileges and restrictions granted to and imposed upon any wholly unissuedseries of Preferred Stock, and to fix the number of shares of any series ofPreferred Stock and the designation of any such series of Preferred Stock.  The Board of Directors, within the limits andrestrictions stated in any resolution or resolutions of the Board of Directorsoriginally fixing the number of shares constituting any series, may increase ordecrease (but not below the number of shares of such series then outstanding)the number of shares of any series subsequent to the issue of shares of thatseries.

**ARTICLE V**

(a)           The liability of the directors ofthis corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated to the fullest extentpermissible under California law.

----

(b)           The corporation is authorized toprovide indemnification of agents (as defined in Section 317 of the CaliforniaCorporations Code) through Bylaw provisions, agreements with agents, vote ofthe shareholders or disinterested directors or otherwise, to the fullest extentpermissible under California law.

(c)           Any amendment, repeal or modificationof any provision of this Article V shall not adversely affect any right orprotection to an agent of this corporation existing at the time of suchamendment, repeal or modification.
| Dated:  January 4,  2006 |             |   |
|------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                               |             |   |
|                               |             |   |
|                               | KENNETH E. MOORE |   |
|                               | Incorporator     |   |

 

----
#### GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION; et al., Plaintiffs, and Ashley Creek Properties, L.L.C., Petitioner-intervenor—Appellant, v. Brent LARSON, Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, in his official capacity; et al., Defendants, United Steelworkers Local 632; et al., Defendant-intervenors, and J.R. Simplot Company, Defendant-intervenor—Appellee.

No. 09-35753.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.

Filed Nov. 17, 2010.

Craig E. Smay, Esquire, E. Craig Smay, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, Jason Wood, Thomsen Stephens Law Offices PLLC, Idaho Falls, ID, for Petitioner-intervenorAppellant.

Justin R. Pidot, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Paul L. Arrington, Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP, Twin Falls, ID, Albert P. Barker, Barker, Rosholt & Simpson, Boise, ID, Svend A. Brandt-Erichsen, Esquire, Jeff B. Kray, Marten Law Group PLLC, *276Seattle, WA, for DefendanU-intervenor-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Ashley Creek Properties, L.L.C., appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ashley Creek sought to intervene in this lawsuit filed by Greater Yellowstone Coalition, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife to enjoin the expansion of J.R. Simplot Company’s Smoky Canyon Mine. Early in the lawsuit, the district court granted intervenor status to Simplot as well as to various Idaho and Wyoming cities and counties, United Steelworkers Local 632, and the Idaho Farm Bureau Association. Ashley Creek sought repeatedly, albeit unsuccessfully, amicus curiae status.

This court instructed the district court to conduct expedited briefing on the final merits of the case. The conservancy groups, Simplot, and the federal agencies all moved for summary judgment. Pursuant to this court’s instructions, the district court issued an expedited scheduling order.

After the expedited briefing on the summary judgment motions had been completed and three weeks before the district court’s scheduled decision, Ashley Creek moved to intervene. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Ashley Creek’s motion to intervene was not timely. *See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson,*131 F.3d 1297, 1302, 1308 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that timeliness is a threshold requirement for both intervention as of right and permissive intervention).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### LaRonda PHOX, Appellant, v. LEE’S SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 07-1882.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2008.

Filed: May 23, 2008.

LaRonda Phox, Kansas City, MO, pro se.

J. Earlene Farr, Matthew Justin Gist, Robert O. Jester, Ensz & Jester, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

LaRonda Phox appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action. To the extent Phox has properly challenged the district court’s analysis of her race-based retaliation, failure-to-promote, unequal-pay, and disparate-impact claims, we find no basis for overturning the grant of summary judgment and Phox has provided none. *See Hesse v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc.,*394 F.3d 624, 629 (8th Cir.2005) (summary judgment standard of review); *Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider pro se claims and allegations advanced for first time on appeal). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Phox’s motion to supplement the record.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
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 on Form 10-Q of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, 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 to my knowledge:



|/s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial
OfficerNovember 14, 2003 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
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 2006-9T1 (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 27, 2007


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