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

No. 10-10056.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Timothy S. Vasquez, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Franny Forsman, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

*183Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Guido Bravatti (“defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846 and one count of distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). He appeals arguing that the district court erred in admitting the methamphetamine and an analysis of it and that he was entrapped by the authorities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Alvarez,*358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo an alleged violation of the Confrontation Clause. *United States v. Norwood,*603 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the methamphetamine was authenticated because there was a reasonable probability based on the testimony of three witnesses that the methamphetamine had not been materially altered. *See Gallego v. United States,*276 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.1960). Because the chain of custody was established by live testimony and not out-of-court statements, defendant fails to show a Confrontation Clause violation.

Defendant fails to show that no reasonable jury could conclude that the government disproved the elements of the entrapment defense. Because there is no evidence that Stephen Corso induced defendant to sell narcotics or that defendant was reluctant to sell narcotics, a reasonable jury could find that the government disproved the entrapment defense. *See United States v. Skarie,*971 F.2d 317, 320 (9th Cir.1992); *United States v. Simas,*937 F.2d 459, 462 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          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 Polymers
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002, 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:

    (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/ J. Kimo Esplin
------------------------------------
J. Kimo Esplin
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002

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.
**Exhibit 12.2**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I,Javier Galán A., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Enersis Américas S.A.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 29, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11196-11197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice #3547]


Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of State announces that the Advisory Committee for 
the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former 
Soviet Union (Title VIII) will convene on Thursday, April 19, 2001, 
beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 1105, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The Advisory Committee will recommend grant recipients for the FY 
2001 competition of the Program for the Study of Eastern Europe and the 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union in connection with the 
``Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the Independent States 
of the Former Soviet Union Act of 1983, as amended.'' The agenda will 
include opening statements by the Chairman and members of the Committee 
and, within the Committee, discussion, approval, and recommendation 
that the Department of State negotiate grant agreements with certain 
``national organizations with an interest and expertise in conducting 
research and training concerning the countries of Eastern Europe and 
the independent states of the former Soviet Union,'' based on the 
guidelines contained in the call for applications published in the 
Federal Register on November 14, 2000. Following committee 
deliberation, interested members of the public may make oral statements 
concerning the Title VIII program in general.
    This meeting will be open to the public; however, attendance will 
be limited to the seating available. Entry into the Department of State 
building is controlled and must be arranged in advance of the meeting. 
Those planning to attend should notify Temi Johnson, INR/RES, U.S. 
Department of State, (202) 736-4572 by Monday, April 16, 2001, 
providing their date of birth, Social Security number, and any 
requirements for special needs. All attendees must use the 2201 C 
Street,

[[Page 11197]]

NW., entrance to the building. Visitors who arrive without prior 
notification and without a photo ID will not be admitted.

    Dated: February 12, 2001.
W. Kendall Myers,
Executive Director, Advisory Committee for Study of Eastern Europe and 
the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, U.S. Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 01-4395 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-32-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2356 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 128

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2356

                          [Report No. 103-234]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to extend the 
      authority of the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain 
              construction projects in the Virgin Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 9, 1993

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

                                                 Union Calendar No. 128
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2356

                          [Report No. 103-234]

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to extend the 
      authority of the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain 
              construction projects in the Virgin Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1993

 Mr. de Lugo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

                           September 9, 1993

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to extend the 
      authority of the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain 
              construction projects in the Virgin Islands.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 406 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (48 U.S.C. 1405c note; 104 
Stat. 4646) is amended by striking subsection (c).
```
#### Tracy WOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1863.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2011.

Tracy Woody, Appellant Pro Se. Megan E. Miller, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Woody appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Woody v. American Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc.,*No. 5:09-cv-00561-D (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2429 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2429

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend preferential 
 treatment in the admission of Amerasian children to children born in 
                            the Philippines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 1993

 Mr. Blackwell (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky, 
 Mr. Wynn, Mr. Foglietta, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Andrews of 
 New Jersey, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Filner, Mr. Underwood, and 
  Mr. Miller of California) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend preferential 
 treatment in the admission of Amerasian children to children born in 
                            the Philippines.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENDING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE ADMISSION OF 
              AMERASIAN CHILDREN TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE PHILIPPINES.

    Section 204(f)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``the date of the 
enactment of this subsection'' and inserting ``October 22, 1982, or was 
born in the Philippines after 1950 and before August 24, 1993''.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51056

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERMAINE TRAMON MEDEARIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-43-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jermaine Tramon Medearis appeals the 51-month sentence imposed 

following the revocation of his supervised release. Medearis argues that the 

sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that the sentence does not punish him 

for violating the court’s trust, but rather for the new conviction underlying the 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-51056 Document: 00512466108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
No. 12-51056

revocation of his supervised release. Medearis further argues that the 

sentence punishes him for problems that he has been trying to overcome, i.e, 

his depression and the ability to acclimate to life outside prison. 

We review preserved challenges to revocation sentences under a “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 

2011). However, because Medearis failed to object in the district court to the 

reasonableness of his revocation sentence, our review is for plain error. See

United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain 

error, Medearis must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that 

affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135

(2009). If Medearis makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to 

correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Medearis has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with regard to his 

revocation sentence. His 51-month sentence, which was at the bottom of the

sentencing range recommended by the policy statements, is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 

F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). To the extent that Medearis disagrees with the 

revocation sentence or disputes the weight that the district court afforded 

various sentencing factors, he has failed to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-51056 Document: 00512466108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6666

JERRY F. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-152) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry F. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Angelone , No. CA-98-152) (W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD
<LEGEND>
                             LEHMAN ABS CORPORATION

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Statement  of  Financial  Condition  at August 31, 1996
(Unaudited)  and the  Consolidated  Statement of Operations  for the nine months
ended August 31, 1996  (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000829281                       
<NAME> Lehman ABS Corp.                       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         101,394
<RECEIVABLES>                                  949,765
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            22,440,769
<PP&E>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,363,447
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<PAYABLES>                                     2,499,662
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             144,544
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,718,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,363,447
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              830,045
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           1,306,181
<COMMISSIONS>                                  0
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<COMPENSATION>                                 3,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,584,653
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     854,920
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   854,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
#### Rosa Tibau PONCE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, Friends of Rule of Law in Ecuador, Inc., Amicus Curiae.

No. 13-2481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Rosa Tibau Ponce, Petitioner Pro Se. Brianne Whelan Cohen, Samuel P. Go, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Margaret L. Petito, Friends of Rule of Law in Ecuador, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rosa Tibau Ponce, a native and citizen of Ecuador and a citizen of Spain, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2013). Accordingly, although we grant Friends of Rule of Law in Ecuador’s motion to file an amicus curiae brief, we deny the petition for review. *See In re: Tibau Ponce*(B.I.A. Nov. 15, 2013). 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Wilder Richman  Historic  Properties
II, L.P.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Richard Paul Richman,  Chief Executive  Officer of Wilder Richman
Historic Corporation,  general partner of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  (S) 1350, as adopted  pursuant to (S) 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.



/s/Richard Paul Richman
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Paul Richman
Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman
Historic Corporation, general partner of the Company
October 15, 2002