alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51036

JAMES ERIC LOFTEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS – AUSTIN; LIBERTY 

COUNTY JUDICIARY; STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-776

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Eric Loften, Texas prisoner # 616132, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition based on it being a 

successive application barred by earlier sanction orders in other proceedings. 

Loften asserts that he is challenging for the first time his November 2013 

conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and 

his 99-year term of imprisonment. 

 

* 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

February 15, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2017
No. 15-51036

2

Reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court erred in 

dismissing Loften’s habeas petition as successive and subject to the prior 

sanctions imposed against Loften in earlier proceedings challenging a different 

conviction or a finding of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding. Additionally, “the 

district court pleadings, the record, and the COA application demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petitioner has made a valid claim 

of a constitutional deprivation.” Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 

2004).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Loften’s motion for a COA is 

GRANTED; his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; 

the district court’s judgment dismissing his § 2254 habeas petition as 

successive and barred by sanctions is VACATED; and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 

387-88 (5th Cir. 1998). Loften’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). His motion for 

an evidentiary hearing and for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and 

subpoenas for out-of-state witnesses is DENIED without prejudice to his filing 

the motion in the district court.

 Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2017
1The Honorable Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

2The Honorable Jean Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3037

___________

Brian Finney, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Dave Dormire, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 10, 2000

Filed: April 21, 2000

___________

Before BOWMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and CARMAN,1 Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Finney appeals from the order of the District Court2 denying Finney's

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Challenging his state-court conviction and

sentence on charges of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, armed criminal

action, and felonious restraint, Finney's habeas petition raised seven grounds for habeas
-2-

relief. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the District Court rejected all of

Finney's claims and dismissed his petition.

The District Court then granted a certificate of appealability on all seven of

Finney's claims, and Finney reasserts them on appeal.

Having considered the case, we conclude that the District Court correctly

disposed of all of Finney's claims. Because an extended opinion by this Court would

add nothing of substance to the District Court's comprehensive opinion, we affirm on

the basis of that opinion.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### **CHAPTER 51—DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO ACCOMMODATE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED**

Sec.
4151.
"Building" defined.
4152.
Standards for design, construction, and alteration of buildings; Administrator of General Services.
4153.
Standards for design, construction, and alteration of buildings; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
4154.
Standards for design, construction, and alteration of buildings; Secretary of Defense.
4154a.
Standards for design, construction, and alteration of buildings; United States Postal Service.
4155.
Effective date of standards.
4156.
Waiver and modification of standards.
4157.
Omitted.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Steven P. Grimes, as Principal Financial Officer, and Lori J. Foust, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her 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/ Brenda G. Gujral        
|----- | ----------------------------
|      |                             
|      |                             
|Name: | Brenda G. Gujral            
|      | Chief Executive Officer     
|      |                             
|Date: | November 4, 2005            
|      |                             
|      |                             
|      |                             
|      | /s/ Steven P. Grimes        
|      |                             
|Name: | Steven P. Grimes            
|      | Principal Financial Officer 
|      |                             
|Date: | November 4, 2005            
|      |                             
|      |                             
|      |                             
|      | /s/ Lori J. Foust           
|      |                             
|Name: | Lori J. Foust               
|      | Principal Accounting Officer
|      |                             
|Date: | November 4, 2005            
|      |
#### § 8c.51 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
NRC SCHEDULES MEETING IN ATLANTA TO DISCUSS UPCOMING INSPECTIONS AT 

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, Aug. 30 

with the Tennessee Valley Authority to discuss the NRC’s plans for supplemental inspections at the 

Browns Ferry nuclear power plant related to a “red” inspection finding issued in May and recently 

confirmed after an additional review.

The meeting is scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. EDT in the NRC’s Region II office, 245 

Peachtree Center Avenue NE in Atlanta. The meeting is open to the public and people attending the 

meeting will have an opportunity to communicate with NRC staff members after the business 

portion of the meeting is completed.

The “red” finding was issued for the failure of a low pressure coolant injection valve last fall 

at the plant. That valve is part of a system that would be used for core cooling during certain 

accident scenarios and its inoperable state could have led to core damage had a series of unlikely 

events occurred. Under the NRC’s oversight process, a “red” finding has “high safety significance” 

and results in increased NRC inspection and oversight of the facility.

The increased NRC oversight at Browns Ferry includes a broad set of supplemental 

inspections to evaluate safety, organizational and programmatic issues at the plant. The schedule for 

those inspection efforts has not yet been set but it will include a more extensive review of programs 

and processes than those conducted as part of the NRC’s baseline inspection program. The facility’s 

safety culture will also be assessed.

The three-unit Browns Ferry plant, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is located 

near Athens, Ala., about 32 miles west of Huntsville.

The letter discussing the “red” finding for the valve issue can be found in the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at by using the document number 

ML111290482 and the letter confirming the finding after the additional review is ML112280215.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link 

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-11-048

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 August 24, 2011 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 230

For the relief of Gao Zhan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Gao Zhan.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 The Congress finds as follows: 

5 (1) Gao Zhan, a noted sociologist and adjunct 

6 professor at American University, is an immigrant 

7 lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 

8 United States. 

9 (2) She is an accomplished academician who 

10 has studied women’s issues and China-Taiwan rela11 tions. 
2

•HR 230 IH 

1 (3) On February 11, 2001, Gao Zhan, her hus2 band, Xue Donghua, and her son, Andrew Xue, were 

3 detained by Chinese authorities at the airport in 

4 Beijing. 

5 (4) Xue Donghua was later released, and since 

6 then the couple has been apart. 

7 (5) Andrew Xue, who is a United States citizen, 

8 was taken away from his parents and put in a Bei9 jing kindergarten for 25 days, which adversely af10 fected him. 

11 (6) Xue Donghua has taken an oath of citizen12 ship to become a United States citizen. 

13 (7) Gao Zhan is a highly respected member of 

14 her community in the United States, has lived in 

15 this country since 1989, and would make a wonder16 ful citizen of the United States. 

17 SEC. 2. NATURALIZATION OF GAO ZHAN. 

18 Notwithstanding section 337(a) or any other provi19 sion of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

20 (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), Gao Zhan shall be considered to 

21 be a naturalized citizen of the United States as of the date 

22 of the enactment of this Act and shall be furnished by 

23 the Attorney General with a certificate of naturalization.

Æ
#### § 8c.49 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 8c.50, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
§ 923.54 Mediation. ( a ) Section 307(h) of the Act provides for mediation of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and a coastal state in the development and implementation of a management program. In certain cases, mediation by the Secretary, with the assistance of the Executive Office of the President, may be an appropriate forum for conflict resolution.
( b ) State-Federal differences should be addressed initially by the parties involved. Whenever a serious disagreement cannot be resolved between the parties concerned, either party may request the informal assistance of the Assistant Administrator in resolving the disagreement. This request shall be in writing, stating the points of disagreement and the reason therefore. A copy of the request shall be sent to the other party to the disagreement.
( c ) If a serious disagreement persists, the Secretary or other head of a relevant Federal agency, or the Governor or the head of the state agency designated by the Governor as administratively responsible for program development (if a state still is receiving section 305 program development grants) or for program implementation (if a state is receiving section 306 program implementation grants) may notify the Secretary in writing of the existence of a serious disagreement, and may request that the Secretary seek to mediate the serious disagreement. A copy of the written request must be sent to the agency with which the requesting agency disagrees and to the Assistant Administrator.
( d ) Secretarial mediation efforts shall last only so long as the parties agree to participate. The Secretary shall confer with the Executive Office of the President, as necessary, during the mediation process.
( e ) Mediation shall terminate: ( 1 ) At any time the parties agree to a resolution of the serious disagreement,
( 2 ) If one of the parties withdraws from mediation,
( 3 ) In the event the parties fail to reach a resolution of the serious disagreement within 15 days following Secretarial mediation efforts, and the parties do not agree to extend mediation beyond that period, or
( 4 ) For other good cause.
( f ) The availability of the mediation services provided in this section is not intended expressly or implicitly to limit the parties' use of alternate forums to resolve disputes. Specifically, judicial review where otherwise available by law may be sought by any party to a serious disagreement without first having exhausted the mediation process provided herein.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2538

To designate the United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami 

Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United 

States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2003

Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. ROSLEHTINEN, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. MARIO DIAZBALART of Florida, Mr. DEUTSCH, and Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 400 

North Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Wilkie 

D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse’’.

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 United States courthouse located at 400 North 

5 Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 
2

•HR 2538 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

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

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United 

6 States Courthouse’’.

Æ
Exhibit
32.2(*)






Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of WebEx Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
T. Everett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to the
best of my knowledge:






(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 the Company.











Date:
March 16, 2005










/s/ MICHAEL
T. EVERETT


Michael
T. Everett


Chief
Financial Officer























































_____________________________






(*) In
accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos.
33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management’s Reports on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic
Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany
this Form 10-K and will not be deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether
made before or after the date hereof irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that the registrant
specifically incorporates it by reference.
### Part B—Emergency Food and Shelter Grants
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID DIXON

, 1

Respondent Below, Appellant,

v.

EVERLY FIELDS

,

Petitioner Below

, Appellee. § § No. 68 , 202 2 § § Court Below

— Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. C N 14

- 02087 § Pet ition No. 2 1

- 15364 § § §

Submitted: July 22 , 202 2

Decided: September 16 , 202 2

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O R D E R

(1) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on

appeal , we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis o f the

Family Court’s order dated February 3, 2022

. The appell ee (“Mother”) filed a

petition in the Family Court seeking to modify the appellant’s (“Father”) visitation

with the parties’ child, which had been established in an order dated September 30,

2019, after a full hearing on the merits , and continued in an order dated February 23,

2021, af ter a hearing on a petition to modify custody filed by Father

.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

(2) As an initial matter, with the exception of some interim provisions that

were designed to facilitate the restoration of Father’s contact with the child

— and

which have now expired

— it appears that the effect of the order that is the subject of

this appeal was to deny Mother’s petition to modify Father’s visitation and continue

the preexisting custody and visitation order . Therefore, it is not apparent what relief

Father would achiev e from success in this appeal. Moreover, t he fact that Father

disagrees with the Family Court’s factual determinations is not a basis for reversal.

Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous

. 2

T o the extent that the Family Court’s determination of facts turned on the credibility

of the witnesses at the hearing, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the

Family Court. 3 Finally, it appears that Father seeks to relitigate matters previously

presented to the Family Court by obtaining discovery or submitting additional

evidence

. After ample notice to the parties, the Family Court held an evidentiary

hearing at which Father appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the

issues raised by Mother’s petition ; he therefore has not established a basis for the

relief he seeks

.

2 Shimel v. Shimel , 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).

3 Id.3

N OW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary T. Traynor

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


     In  connection  with  the accompanying Quarterly Report of Superior Oil and
Gas  Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Report"),  I,  Daniel  Lloyd,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  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 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

     (2)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  May  19,  2004
                              /s/  Daniel  Lloyd
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              Daniel  Lloyd
                              Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.













                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 63 FR 10303, Mar. 3, 1998, and at 73 FR 46553, Aug. 11, 2008.

#### § 70.1 Cutoff dates and effect on enumeration and data tabulation.

For the tabulation and publication of data from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, the Bureau of the Census will recognize only those boundaries legally in effect on January 1, 2010 that have been reported officially to the Bureau of the Census no later than March 1, 2010. The Bureau of the Census enumerates respondents on the date of the decennial census as residing within the legal limits of municipalities, county subdivisions, counties, States, and equivalent areas as those limits exist on January 1, 2010.