alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

OIEA-CID Job Shadowing Program

Compliance Investigator – GS 1801

Application

** Personnel in pay grades GS 9s and above are eligible to apply. Personnel that were selected and 

participated in previous OIEA/CID job shadowing programs are not eligible.

I. Personal Information 

*Name:

*Home Address:

*Phone (Day):

*Email:

*Current General Schedule (GS) Grade:

*Highest Education Level:

*Supervisor’s Name:

*Supervisor's Email & phone #:

II. Experience

* Current Job Title:

* Current District Office:

* Current Duty station:

* Years of experience with FSIS:

*Complete Attachment A, next page:
2

*Instructions- Attachment A: Font Size: 11; Times New Roman, Margins: Narrow. Responses to 

questions 1-4 below may not exceed 2 pages. Total Application Package will consist of 4 pages. 

Responses to the four questions below will be judged competitively by a review panel; do not use any 

names in your narrative. 

1. Describe the duties of your current assignment and how those duties support the FSIS mission.

2. Describe how you have used, in your current job, the following: interpersonal skills, written and 

verbal communication skills, independent decision-making, problem-solving skills, and 

professionalism.

3. Describe a recent situation that demonstrates your ability to explain a regulatory control or 

enforcement action to plant management. How did you initiate the conversation? Did you encounter 

push-back? Were you able to effectively communicate the issues, identify applicable 

statues/regulations, and appropriately document findings to support your actions?

 

4. Explain why you should be considered for this OIEA job shadowing opportunity. Please reference 

the following competencies as appropriate in your response: accountability; integrity; problem 

solving; and team building. 

Supervisory Statement:

I recommend _____________________________ (name of applicant) be considered for 

participation in the CID Job Shadowing Program. He/she is currently an employee in the 

_____________________ District, and possesses the verbal and writing skills, integrity, 

and professionalism necessary to work with Compliance Investigators in the incommerce environment. 

I have discussed this opportunity with the applicant and, if selected, he/she understands 

the expectation to fully participate in all aspects of the program; cooperate with CID 

mentors and follow their guidance during in-commerce activities; and demonstrate 

professional conduct at all times. 

 

___________________________________ ____________________________________

Supervisor’s Printed Name Supervisor’s Signature

NOTE: The applicant’s supervisor must email this application to the respective District 

Office for consideration before May 5, 2023. 

District Offices should email completed applications to shaun.smith@usda.gov and 

jasmine.hale@usda.gov before May 26, 2023.
### STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS 

## 0 k A 

# 9 NO. 

### 2023 KW 1225 DAVID L. WILLIAMS 

### JANUARY 29, 2024 In Re: David L. Williams, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,

19th Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 6- 13-0241. BEFORE: 

### MCCLENDON, RESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

### WRIT DENIED AS MOOT. The records of the East Baton Rouge 

### Parish Clerk's Office reflect that the 

### district court acted on relator' s " 

# Motion for ProductionofVerbatimCopies ofTrial and SentencingTranscripts." PMC CHH SMM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago IBARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50136.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Sean K. Lokey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Santiago Ibarra, Adelanto, CA, Suzanne M. Lachelier, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendani>-Appellant.

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 **

Santiago Ibarra appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and conspiracy to distribute *631methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ibarra contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward adjustment for minor role pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record supports the district court’s determination that Ibarra had not met his burden of showing that he was entitled to this adjustment. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006). Furthermore, we reject Ibarra’s contention that the district court violated his right to due process by imposing a higher burden of proof because nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court held Ibarra to a higher burden.

Because we conclude that the district court took into account the appropriate sentencing factors, we reject Ibarra’s contention that the sentence is unreasonable and that the district court unduly emphasized certain sentencing factors over others. We conclude that the ultimate sentence imposed was reasonable. *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,728,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  983,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,840,950
<PP&E>                                       5,094,225
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,468,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,934,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          931,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,183,077<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,934,440
<SALES>                                      3,873,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,905,761<F2>
<CGS>                                        1,860,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,860,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,514,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                425,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                   446,002
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,491)<F3>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)<F4>
<FN>
<F1>RELECTS RETAINED EARNINGS PAID IN CAPITAL
<F2>RELECTS OPERATING REVENUES AND INCOME
<F3>CALCULATED ON A PRO-FORMA BASIS WOULD BE $252,409
<F4>CALCULATED ON A PRO-FORMA BASIS WOULD BE $.08
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage - Servicing

MAC A0357-030
P.O. Box 4036, Concord, Ca 94524
1320 Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
800 986-9711



ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


RE: Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-TOP26

In accordance with Section 13.9 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
"Agreement") dated April 1, 2007 executed by and between Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., (as "Depositor"), Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, (as "Master Servicer"), Centerline Servicing Inc., (as
"Special Servicer"), LaSalle Bank National Association, (as "Trustee" and
"Custodian"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, (as "Paying Agent",
"Certificate Registrar" and "Authenticating Agent"), as authorized officer of
the Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, I certify that (A)
a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Master Servicer under this
Agreement has been made under my supervision and (B) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year
or portion thereof.


Dated: March 14, 2008

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
"Master Servicer"


/s/ Briggs A. Hawley

Briggs A. Hawley
Vice President
#### Jonathan Cataldo BERTANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-16990.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*532Submitted April 7, 2014*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez),*51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli’s action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs”); *see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County,*216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.2000) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) requirements).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertanelli’s motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. *See*D. Ariz. Loe. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); *Hinton v. Pac. Enters.,*5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); *see also Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

Bertanelli’s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH SCHEDULES
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,582
<SECURITIES>                                     2,426
<RECEIVABLES>                                  218,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,186
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,422
<PP&E>                                         382,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 798,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          404,623
<BONDS>                                         58,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   798,209
<SALES>                                        279,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               279,216
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  234,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,378
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (811)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,763)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
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
hhgregg, Inc. (the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. May, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1). | The Report fully complies 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    DENNIS L.
MAYDennis L. May President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 26, 2011

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.
#### Atlanta, Knoxville and Northern Railway Co. *v.*Bryant.

Submitted March 2,

Decided March 27, 1901.

Action for damages. Before Judge Gober. Cobb superior court. June 4, 1900.

*Smith, Hammond & Smith*and *W. JR. Power,*for plaintiff in error.

*Morris & Green,*contra.

Eish, J.

The instructions to the jury, taken all together, embraced a fair and sufficient presentation of the law of the case, and the portions thereof excepted to were not, in the light of the entire charge, open to the objections made to them ; there was no error in admitting evidence ; the grounds of the motion for a new trial relating to newly discovered evidence were not such as to warrant a reversal of the judgment; and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, with respect both to its amount and to the liability of the defendant. *Judgment affirmed:*

*All the Justices concurring.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         265,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,068,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,954,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,144,799
<PP&E>                                       5,275,511
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,417,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,755,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,728,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,291
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,287,999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,755,418
<SALES>                                      4,216,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,216,085
<CGS>                                        2,255,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,468,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (252,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    96,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (155,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (155,745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ali PARTOVI, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 10-5328.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2011.

Ali Partovi, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Warden (Florence FCC), Florence, AZ, for Appellant.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court *356for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 20, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, because appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the appropriate agency before filing suit in district court. *See*Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
2009-1860.

#### State v. Strickland.

Lake App. No. 2008-L-034, 2009-Ohio-5424. Discretionary appeal accepted; cause held for the decisions in 2008-2502, *State v. Bodyke,*Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387, and 2008-0991 and 2008-0992, *Chojnacki v. Cordray,*Warren App. No. CA2008-03-040; and briefing schedule stayed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15.1

AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

August 4, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

|    |  |                                                                                
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Re: |  | Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. Registrations on Form S-3 and
Form S-8.

We are aware that our report dated July 31, 2003 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the period ended June 30, 2003 and included in the Companys
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by
reference in the Companys registration statements on Form S-3 (File No.
333-53162) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-76269, 333-21619, 333-55685, 333-33533,
333-27891, 333-60190, 333-74452, 333-87630 and 333-36092). Pursuant to Rule
436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by us within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP