alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. H ECTOR V ARGAS , a/k/a Rudolpho No. 01-4925



#  Pineda-Rodriquez, a/k/a Jesus Calderon, a/k/a Jesus, a/k/a Hector Calderon-Vargas,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-96) Submitted: June 6, 2002 Decided: July 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL R. Clarke Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Hector Vargas appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracyto distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Vargas raises only one issue on appeal, contending that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to accept his guilty plea. Under Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "the court should not enter a judgment upon [a guilty] plea without making suchinquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea." Furthermore, there is "no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted,"and a district court may "reject a plea in [the] exercise of sound judicial discretion." Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and record on appeal and are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Vargas’s guilty plea.Accordingly, we affirm Vargas’s conviction and sentence. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. V ARGAS
Institution Name:

Certificate Number:

Quarter End Date:

Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 

(Col 3 + Col 4) Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 (Col 6 + Col 7)

Day Date

Balances due From 

Federal Reserve 

Banks

Federal Funds Sold Total Potential 

Deduction

Deposits due to 

Commercial 

Banks and Other 

Depository 

Institutions in the 

U.S.

Federal Funds 

Purchased Deduction Limit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Daily 

Average 

Sum of each column 

divided by the number 

of days in the period

As reported on

Schedule RC-O item 10a Schedule RC-O item 10b

Banker's Bank Deduction - Daily Average Reporting Summary
Institution Name:

Certificate Number:

Quarter End Date:

Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8

Week Date

Balances due From 

Federal Reserve 

Banks

Federal Funds Sold Total Potential 

Deduction

Deposits due to 

Commercial 

Banks and Other 

Depository 

Institutions in the 

U.S.

Federal Funds 

Purchased Deduction Limit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Weekly 

Average 

Sum of each column 

divided by the number 

of Wednesdays in the 

period

As reported on

Schedule RC-O item 10a Schedule RC-O item 10b

Banker's Bank Deduction - Weekly Average Reporting Summary
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

11:00 a.m., Friday, March 16, 2001.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01-5050  Filed 2-27-01; 11:04 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
|    |                                                                                      |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 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; |

|                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                         |
| /s/ Russell Hammer                                      |
| Russell Hammer                                          |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  |
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Parkview Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard B. Frost,
President of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 result of operations of our Company.

|                                         | 
|---------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Richard
 B. Frost                    | 
|                                         | 
|Richard B.
 Frost                        | 
|President
 (Principal Executive Officer) | 
|April 14,
 2009                          | 

---
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-48801 and 333-84753) pertaining to the 1992 Incentive
Stock Plan, the 1997 Director Stock Option Plan and the 1997 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, and the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Focal, Inc. of our report
dated January 25, 2000, except for Note 11 as to which the date is
February 25, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of Focal, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1999.



                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 24, 2000
#### Jagrent SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73827.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*670Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

Tsz-Hai Huang, Manish Daftari, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark L. Gross, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, John Cotton Richmond, Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jagrent Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that he is eligible for CAT relief because he failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We have jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the decisions of the BIA and IJ, *see Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and we deny petition for review.

*671The IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility determination that are supported by substantial evidence and go to the heart of Singh’s claim, including an inconsistency regarding his first arrest. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Singh was credible, he has not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4724]



[[Page 12510]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Meeting Notice Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register on January 26, 2001 announcing a meeting of the 
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council to be held on Tuesday, 
February 27, 2001 (See FCC Public Announcement DA 01-294). The document 
incorrectly specified that February 27 was a Wednesday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kimball at 202-418-2339 or TTY 
202-418-2989.

CORRECTION:
    In the Federal Register of January 26, 2001 in FR document 01-2284, 
on page 7911, in the third column, correct the Dates caption to read:

DATES: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 at 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.

Federal Communications Commission.
Rebecca Dorch,
Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 01-4724 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of approved amendment to a Tribal-State Compact.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Management), Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the First Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact for Class III Gaming between the Lummi Indian Nation and the State of Washington, which was executed on December 18, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective February 27, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: February 8, 2001.

James H. McDivitt,

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Management).

[FR Doc. 01-4743 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2233 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2233

To deny, under certain conditions, most-favored-nation treatment to the 
 products of countries that engage in nuclear explosive device testing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1993

   Mr. Stark (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Sabo) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To deny, under certain conditions, most-favored-nation treatment to the 
 products of countries that engage in nuclear explosive device testing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That General Note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``Notwithstanding''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) If the President determines that a foreign country has tested a 
nuclear explosive device at any time during a period in which the 
United States is--
        ``(A) observing a moratorium on the testing of nuclear 
        explosive devices; or
        ``(B) party to a comprehensive nuclear explosive test ban 
        treaty;
        the President shall proclaim that the rates of duty shown in 
        column 2 shall apply to the products of that country, whether 
        imported directly or indirectly, that are entered during the 1-
        year period beginning on the date of such determination.''.

                                 <all>
```
|   | 1. | Maturity Date;      Waiver.  Holder and the Company agree that the “Maturity      Date” of the Debenture shall be April 10, 2008.  Holder agrees      to waive any Event of Default that may have occurred or be deemed to have      occurred prior to the date hereof that is related to or arises from the      failure to pay amounts due under theDebenture. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Consideration.  In      consideration of Holder’s execution of this Amendment and extension of the      Maturity Date to April 10, 2008, the Company agrees to pay Holder      $8,181.82 within seven (7) days after Holder’s execution of this      Amendment. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Execution      Date.  This Amendment and the terms contained herein      shall be considered null and void if a copy of this Amendment executed by      Holder is not received by the Company by mail, fax or email by 5pm,      Pacific time, on March 19, 2008.  Contact information is set      forth on the signature page hereto. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | HOLDER:                                              |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | GENERATION      CAPITAL ASSOCIATES.                  |
|   |                                                 |
|   | By:/s/  David      A. Rappaport            |
|   | Name:    David      A. Rappaport |
|   | Title:         EVP &GC            |
|   |                                                 |
|   |                                                 |
|   | RIM      SEMICONDUCTOR COMPANY                       |
|   |                                                 |
| `      | By:  /s/      Brad Ketch                   |
|   | Brad      Ketch                                      |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer           |
|   |                                                 |
|   | Rim      Semiconductor Company                       |
|   | 305      NE 102nd      Ave, Suite 350                |
|   | Portland,      OR 97220                              |
|   | Fax:  503.257.6622                         |
|   | Email:      BKetch@rimsemi.com                       |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 9, 2010 

0708 

Order 

 

July 9, 2010 

140775 (57) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140775 

 COA: 294667 

Wayne CC: 09-015867-AR 

MARY M. WATERSTONE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 4, 2010 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 YOUNG, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration and grant leave to appeal, 

for the reasons stated in his dissenting statement in this matter. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration and grant leave to 

appeal. 

 CORRIGAN, J., states as follows: 

 I am not participating because I may be a witness in this case.
<PAGE>








                                  EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of StateFed Financial
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andra
K. Black, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



By: /s/ Andra K. Black
   -------------------
Name:  Andra K. Black
Chief Financial Officer
September 25, 2002
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2559

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 601

the ‘‘Richard Bolling Federal Building’’.East 12th Street in Kansas City, Missouri, as
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2559

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 601 East 12th

Street in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Richard Bolling

Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 601 East 12th Street

5 in Kansas City, Missouri, shall be known and designated

6 as the ‘‘Richard Bolling Federal Building’’.
2

•HR 2559 EH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Richard Bolling Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-11216 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00242-CEH-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRACY COX, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 24, 2012)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11216 Date Filed: 09/24/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Charles E. Taylor, appointed counsel for Tracy Cox in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cox’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 12-11216 Date Filed: 09/24/2012 Page: 2 of 2