alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 February 27, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30901 Summary Calendar

EMMANUEL SHAR, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, CHRISTINE DAVIS, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-549

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Emmanuel Shar, formerly federal detainee # 18548-265, a native and citizen of Liberia, was ordered removed to Liberia on September 12, 2002. After being detained at Oakdale for over six months, Shar filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to be released based on his allegation that there was no reason to believe that his removal would occur in the reasonablyNo. 03-30901 -2- foreseeable future. The district court denied the petition, and the instant appeal was filed. The United States Attorney has now informed the court that Shar has been removed from the United States and has been deported to his native country of Liberia. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on factual mootness. The Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as MOOT. Shar’s petition for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as MOOT.
Exhibit 31.1

I,  Michael Schaffer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant 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)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  company's  disclosure  controls  and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's  internal  control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered 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 registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to the  date  of  our  most  recent  evaluation,
including any  corrective  actions with regard to significant  deficiencies  and
material weaknesses.

/s/ Michael Schaffer
-----------------------
Michael Schaffer,
Chief Executive Officer
January 31, 2005
# C_2007075EN.01001101.xml

| 3.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/11

---

Lifting by the Federal Republic of Germany of public service obligations on scheduled air services operating on the following routes: Erfurt — Berlin, Erfurt — Hamburg, Erfurt — Cologne/Bonn, Saarbrücken — Frankfurt/Main, Rostock-Laage — Frankfurt/Main, Erfurt — London

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 75/06)

The Federal Republic of Germany has decided to lift the public service obligations on scheduled air services which were imposed on the following routes under Article 4(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes:

| 1. | Erfurt — Berlin, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Erfurt — Berlin, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 2. | Erfurt — Hamburg, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Erfurt — Hamburg, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 3. | Erfurt — Cologne/Bonn, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000, |
| --- | --- |

3.

Erfurt — Cologne/Bonn, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 67 of 9 March 2000,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 4. | Saarbrücken — Frankfurt/Main, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 of 22 May 2001, |
| --- | --- |

4.

Saarbrücken — Frankfurt/Main, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 of 22 May 2001,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 5. | Rostock-Laage — Frankfurt/Main, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 23 of 25 January 2002, |
| --- | --- |

5.

Rostock-Laage — Frankfurt/Main, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 23 of 25 January 2002,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 6. | Erfurt — London, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 87 of 10 April 2003. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Erfurt — London, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 87 of 10 April 2003.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIE VILLALBA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2608 LKK DAD P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

Petitioner has also filed a document styled, “Motion For Discoveries,” in which he

seeks a court order permitting him to conduct discovery and to obtain a copy of an executive

report purportedly prepared for the Governor of California. However, petitioner has not provided

sufficiently specific information regarding the discovery he seeks to conduct, how the document

he seeks will support the claims set out in his habeas petition and why the information he seeks

cannot be obtained without a court order.

Case 2:04-cv-02608-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s application within

thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination

of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of

service of an answer;

3. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion,

and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; 

4. Petitioner’s December 8, 2004 motion for discovery is denied; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves,

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: September 1, 2005.

DAD:kf/4

vill2608.100f 

Case 2:04-cv-02608-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID V. GILLILAND, DOC # R36487, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2352 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 10, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. David V. Gilliland, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, LaROSE, C.J., and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
No. 47402.

#### Protests 846495-G, etc., of American Lecithin Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.2



MARKETWATCH, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of MarketWatch, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2004 (the Report), I, Paul J. Mattison, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated therein.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: November 12, 2004



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Paul J. Mattison                     
|    |  | Paul J. Mattison, Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ScottR. Pancoast, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Gary J.G. Atkinson,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to our knowledge:

(1)                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 14, 2007     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    |
| /s/ Scott R.  Pancoast  |   | /s/ Gary J.G.  Atkinson |   |
|                    |   |   |   |
| Scott R.  Pancoast, CEO |   | Gary J.G.  Atkinson, CFO |   |
|                         |        |  |  |  |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas E. Lee, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 326]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of attempted arson in the second degree, defendant argues that County Court erred in denying his motion at the close of proof to dismiss the attempted arson count. Defendant argues that, because the proof established that an arson had been committed, the court should have dismissed the count charging only attempted arson. We disagree. Attempted arson is a lesser included offense of arson *(see,*CPL 1.20 [37]). Thus, if the proof established that an act of arson was committed, then it concomitantly established that an attempt to commit an act of arson was committed *(see,*Penal Law § 110.00; *People v Dlugash,*41 NY2d 725, 732). Neither defendant’s right to notice of the charges nor the Grand Jury’s exclusive power to determine them was violated *(see, People v Grega,*72 NY2d 489, 496).

We further reject defendant’s contention that the proof was insufficient *(see, People v Williams,*84 NY2d 925, 926). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Attempted Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Eye Dynamics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted 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 operation of
         the Company

Date:  April 6, 2005                  /s/ Ronald A. Waldorf
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Ronald A. Waldorf
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES CO URT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-299V Filed: September 10, 2014 (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JANET DEYEAR

, * * Stipulation; Hepatitis B; Petitioner, * Asthma; Chronic Sinus Disease

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Margaret M. Guerra, Esq., Margaret M. Guerra, Attorney at Law, Fort Worth, TX for petitioner. Ann D. Martin, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON J OINT STIPULATION 1

Gowen, Special Master:

Janet Deyear [petitioner ] filed a petition for com pensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 on April 29, 2013. Petitioner alleges that the Hepatitis B vaccinations she received on April 27, May 25, and October 12, 2010,

caused her severe asthma and chronic sinus disease. See Stipulation, filed September 9, 2014, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Further, petitioner alleges that she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. at ¶ 4

. Respondent denies that petitioner’s Hepatitis B vaccinations caused severe asth ma, chronic sinus disease, or any other injury. Id. at ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Va ccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that sa tisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted

decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fi ts within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2006).Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to se ttle the case. On September 9, 2014, the parties filed a joint st ipulation agreeing to settle th is case and describing the
settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner:

(a) A lump sum of $35,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Janet Deyear. This am ount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

The special master adopts the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgm ent can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek 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 FLATBUSH  FEDERAL BANCORP,  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Anthony J. Monteverdi,  Chairman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company and John S. Lotardo,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
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 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 the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


                                               /s/ Anthony J. Monteverdi
                                               -------------------------
                                               Anthony J. Monteverdi
                                               Chairman, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer



                                               /s/ John S. Lotardo
                                               -------------------------
                                               John S. Lotardo
                                               Senior Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2005
      -----------------


                                       20
Case No. 8,471.

#### LOMBARD v. McLEAN.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 623.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1835.

Evidence — Copy op Account Books.

Copies of plaintiff’s account books are not evidence.

Assumpsit for balance of account; the plaintiff having been the defendant’s [Cornelius McLean’s] factor for the sale of glass.

Mr. Marbury, for plaintiff,

offered the deposition of a witness taken in Boston, under the act of congress [4 Stat. 197], stating that an account, thereto annexed, was truly copied from the plaintiff’s books; the entries in which, with some exceptions, were in the handwriting of the witness, and were true.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) rejected so much of the deposition as related to the books and accounts, the original entries not being produced.

Verdict for the plaintiff.
Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                     For Nevada Profit Corporations
           (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 After Issuance of Stock)

1. Name of corporation:
MNS EAGLEEQUITYGROUP,INC.

2. The articles have been amended as follows(provide article numbers, if
available):

THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO:

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT FUND, INC.


3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such
greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a
vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the
articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is: 100 percent

4. Effective date of filing(optional):

5. Officer Signature (required):   /s/ Stephen M. Seidow, President
                                 -------------------------------------------

*If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative
or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the
amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote
otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the
voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless
of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the
Proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.

This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees. Nevada Secretary of State
No. 52048.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 120331-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested and not found were not in fact received by the importer or by any other person for the importer’s account. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested and not found, is subject to an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes. The protest was sustained to this extent.