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

No. 02-6516.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying his *664motion demanding that the court address his motion for reproduction of his personal legal papers, and (2) denying his motions for reconsideration and for information about a deported government witness. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

Here, the district court’s order denying Lora’s motion demanding resolution of a motion for reproduction of legal papers was entered on the criminal docket on February 19, 2002, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(6); the ten-day appeal period expired on March 1, 2002. Lora dated the notice of appeal March 20, 2002, and it was postmarked on March 21, 2002. Thus, Lora’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the ten-day appeal period but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period that expired on April 1, 2002.1 Because Lora’s notice of appeal from the February 19 order was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Lora has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period.2 The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED.*

1

. The thirty-day excusable neglect period expired on Sunday, March 31, 2002. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(3).

2

. The notice of appeal was timely as to the March 15 order. We defer consideration of the merits of that order until the case is returned to us for further review.
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 of JACOBS  FINANCIAL  GROUP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  August 31,  2011 (the  "Report")
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  I, John M. Jacobs,  Chief
Executive Officer and 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:

         (1) The  Company's  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.



Date: October 24, 2011


                  /s/John M. Jacobs
                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  John M. Jacobs,  Chief Executive Officer
                  and Chief Financial Officer
§ 1024.620 Due diligence programs for private banking accounts. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.620 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 34.703 Application procedure—Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program. Treasury has developed an application process for grants available to the Gulf Coast States under this subpart that is consistent with the Act and Federal laws and policies on grants. The process includes the following requirements: ( a ) Each Gulf Coast State must describe the competitive process that the state will use to select one or more Centers of Excellence. The competitive process must allow nongovernmental entities and consortia in the Gulf Coast Region, including public and private institutions of higher education, to compete. The process must give priority to entities and consortia that demonstrate the ability to establish the broadest cross-section of participants in the grant with interest and expertise in science, technology, and monitoring in the discipline(s) on which the proposal is focused. The process must also guard against conflicts of interest.
( b ) Each Gulf Coast State must describe in its application the state rules and policies applying to subawards it will issue under this subpart. At a minimum, these state rules and policies must include the competitive selection process and measures to guard against conflicts of interest.
( c ) Each Gulf Coast State must demonstrate in its application that the state rules and policies applying to subawards it will issue under this subpart were published and available for public review and comment for a minimum of 45 days, and that they were approved after consideration of meaningful input from the public, including broad-based participation from individuals, businesses, Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations. These requirements do not apply to state statutes and regulations, or to policies that were in effect prior to August 15, 2014.
( d ) Each application must state the amount of funding requested and the purposes for which the funds will be used.
#### § 19.1015 Suspension.

*Suspension* is an action taken by a suspending official under subpart G of this part that immediately prohibits a person from participating in covered transactions and transactions covered under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) for a temporary period, pending completion of an agency investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A person so excluded is suspended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements for the six months ended January
31,  1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                  1,545
<SECURITIES>                           23,686
<RECEIVABLES>                             161
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,706
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         25,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      65
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             25,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           25,835
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          986
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           683
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       683
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.23
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3734

_____________________________
D EMETRIS S. A LLEN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court fo r Duval County

. James Daniel , Judge

. July 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

___________ __________________2 Demetris S. Allen, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section1350,**

**as****Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SouthHertfordshire United Kingdom Fund, Ltd. (the “Partnership”) for the quarterended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert Mackenzie, as a director for ntlDirectors Limited, the Corporate Director of Fawnspring Limited, the generalpartner of the Partnership, and Robert Gale, as a director for ntl DirectorsLimited, the Corporate Director of Fawnspring Limited, the general partner ofthe Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the bestof his knowledge, that:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ ROBERT MACKENZIE |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Name:                |   | Robert Mackenzie, director of ntl Directors Limited |
| Title:               |   | Corporate Director of Fawnspring Limited, |
|                 |   | the General Partner of South Hertfordshire United Kingdom Fund, Ltd.* |
| Date:                |   | November 15, 2004 |
|                      |        |  |  |

 
| /s/ ROBERT GALE |   |
|-----------------|--------|
| Name:           |   | Robert Gale, director of ntl Directors limited |
| Title:          |   | Corporate Director of Fawnspring Limited, |
|            |   | the General Partner of South Hertfordshire United Kingdom Fund, Ltd.* |
| Date:           |   | November 15, 2004 |
|                 |        |  |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Partnership and will beretained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----

*              The Partnership hasno Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer. Robert Mackenzie andRobert Gale are Directors of ntl Directors Limited, which is a corporatedirector of Fawnspring Limited, the general partner of the Partnership.

 

----
§ 19.940 Disqualified. *Disqualified* means that a person is prohibited from participating in specified Federal procurement or nonprocurement transactions as required under a statute, Executive order (other than Executive Orders 12549 and 12689) or other authority. Examples of disqualifications include persons prohibited under— ( a ) The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a));
( b ) The equal employment opportunity acts and Executive orders; or
( c ) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7606), Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368) and Executive Order 11738 (3 CFR, 1973 Comp., p. 799).
#### In the Matter of Waterside Associates, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Tax Commissioner of City of New York et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 441]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated February 27, 2004, finding the petitioners liable for interest on real estate taxes for the tax years July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2001, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated January 5, 2005, which dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant proceeding was properly dismissed as time-barred *(see*CPLR 217; *Matter of Adventist Home v Board of Assessors of Town of Livingston,*83 NY2d 878 [1994]; *Matter of Castroll v Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 2*AD3d 443 [2003]). H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11291 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JACK EDWARD BALL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-93-ALL-P

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jack Edward Ball appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of theft or receipt of stolen mail matter, arguing that it violates the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Ball’s Blakely objection in the district court preserved whether Ball’s sentence violated United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), for appeal. Accordingly, we review for harmless error, which requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that theNo. 04-11291 -2- district court would have imposed the same sentence if it had been operating under an advisory guidelines system. See United States v. Pineiro , 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record convinces us that the error in this case cannot be considered harmless. Although the district court sentenced Ball at the top of the guideline range authorized by the then-mandatory guidelines range, that fact is insufficient, standing alone, to satisfy the Government’s burden. See United States v. Woods , 440 F.3d 255, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s comments about the seriousness of Ball’s offense and the impact of his offense shed no additional light on what the court would have done if the Guidelines had been advisory; they may simply reflect why the court believed the sentence was appropriate within the mandatory guidelines framework. Cf. United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1444 (2006). Ball has abandoned on appeal his challenge to the district court’s calculation of his criminal history score. See United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez , 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard Rubin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of American BiogeneticSciences, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange 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  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: November 11, 2010

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 306.110 Statutory authority and requirements.

Relief is authorized, under certain conditions, for the loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement of U.S. securities, whether before, at, or after maturity. A bond of indemnity, in such form and with such surety, sureties or security as may be required to protect the interests of the United States, is required as a condition of relief on account of any bearer security or any registered security assigned in blank or so assigned as to become in effect payable to bearer, and is ordinarily required in the case of unassigned registered securities.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 172

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1996 Summer Olympic Torch

and for other purposes.Relay to be run through the Capitol Grounds,
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 172

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 172 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF 1996 SUMMER

2 OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL

3 GROUNDS.

4 On June 20, 1996, or on such other date as the

5 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi6 dent pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, the

7 1996 Summer Olympic Torch Relay may be run through

8 the Capitol Grounds, and the Olympic Torch may be dis9 played on the Capitol Grounds overnight, as part of the

10 ceremony of the Centennial Olympic Games to be held in

11 Atlanta, Georgia.

12 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized by section

14 1 shall be free of admission charge to the public and ar15 ranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under

16 conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol

17 and the Capitol Police Board. The sponsor of the event

18 shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabil19 ities incident to all activities associated with the event.

20 (b) PROHIBITION ON DISPLAY OF ADVERTISE21 MENTS.—The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Po22 lice Board shall take such actions as may be necessary

23 to prohibit the display of advertisements for commercial

24 products or services during the event. Such actions shall

25 include measures to ensure that advertisements are not
3

•HCON 172 EH

1 displayed on any vehicle accompanying runners in the

2 Torch Relay.

3 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

4 For the purposes of this resolution, the sponsor of

5 the event authorized by section 1 may erect upon the Cap6 itol Grounds, subject to the approval of the Architect of

7 the Capitol, such structures and equipment as are nec8 essary for the event.

9 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

10 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

11 Board are authorized to make any additional arrangement

12 that may be required to carry out the event authorized

13 by section 1.

14 SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS ON REPRESENTATIONS.

15 A commercial sponsor of the 1996 Summer Olympic

16 Torch Relay may not represent, either directly or indi17 rectly, that this resolution or any activity carried out

18 under this resolution in any way constitutes approval or

19 endorsement by the Federal Government of the commer-
4

•HCON 172 EH

1 cial sponsor or any product or service offered by the com2 mercial sponsor.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               BIRCH BRANCH, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Schumacher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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), as applicable, 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/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
February 16, 2006