alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00607-CV

BRIAN GUIDRY, Appellant

V.

GPE 1331 LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1156853

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed September 2, 2020. The clerk’s 

record was filed September 8, 2020. No reporter’s record was taken. No brief was 

filed.

On November 10, 2020, this court issued an order stating that unless 

appellant filed a brief on or before December 10, 2020, the court would dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
EXHIBIT 31.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ivan Bial, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(formerly Clamshell Enterprises, Inc.).;

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

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

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

   (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

   (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2004               By: /s/ Ivan Bial
                                       Ivan Bial, Director, Secretary and
                                       Principle Financial Officer
No. 59583.

protest 200560-K (New York).

#### The Parfums Robert Piguet, Inc., and Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*354Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of one case No. 55, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the merchandise which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 13.2

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 Kappa Holding B.V. (the "Company") on form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. Wagter, Chief Financial Officer/Managing Director 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:



Date:
August 19, 2004

| |  | By:    | /s/H. WAGTER                             
| |  | ------ | -----------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  | H. Wagter                                
| |  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer/Managing Director

---



QuickLinks
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

GEORGE MARLIN KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

vs. CIV-S-04-2054-MCE/GGH

N.A.S.A.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed an amended “motion to compel [discovery]” now set to be heard

before the undersigned on June 9, 2005. However, upon review, the motion to compel is in fact a

dispositive motion on the merits which should be heard by the district judge in this non-consent

and non-pro se case.

Plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed a Freedom Of Information Act

complaint on October 5, 2004. He has complained that NASA improperly redacted scientific

documents related to the Mars Rover mission which he had requested. He disputes NASA’s

rationale for those redactions. The present motion to compel seeks an order finding that the

redactions are unjustified.

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 05/20/05 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

Given the unique aspects of a FOIA case, in essence a statutory discovery device

for government documents, the motion to compel is in fact a motion for summary judgment. 

That is, an order on the motion to compel would resolve the case. Under the Local Rules of this

District, in “ordinary” civil actions, the magistrate judge may hear only true “discovery” motions. 

E.D. Cal. LR 72-302(c) (1). As set forth above, plaintiff’s motion is in the nature of summary

judgment, not discovery. Therefore, the magistrate judge is not authorized to adjudicate the

motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended motion for discovery,

filed May 2, 2005, is vacated from this court’s calendar for June 9, 2005. Plaintiff shall re-notice

his motion for summary judgment before the assigned district judge. 

DATED: May 20, 2005 

 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Knight2054.ord.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02054-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350



In connection with the Annual Report of TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify:



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.



/s/    KIP MCCLANAHANKip McClanahanChief Executive Officer/s/    ADAM CHIBIBAdam ChibibChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4756 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4756

To subject aliens convicted of certain crimes to expedited removal from 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2024

  Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Tillis) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To subject aliens convicted of certain crimes to expedited removal from 
                           the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Visas for Violent Criminals 
Act''.

SEC. 2. IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR UNLAWFUL PROTEST-RELATED 
              ACTIVITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                    ``(G) Unlawful protest-related activities.--Any 
                alien who is convicted of a crime--
                            ``(i) related to the alien's conduct at and 
                        during the course of a protest that occurs at 
                        an institution of higher education (as defined 
                        in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 
                        of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) or at a facility 
                        in the United States operated by a religious 
                        institution;
                            ``(ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, 
                        or destruction of a Federal memorial or 
                        monument, including any veterans memorial 
                        referred to in Executive Order 13934 of July 3, 
                        2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 41165; relating to Building 
                        and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes); 
                        or
                            ``(iii) involving the intentional 
                        obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or 
                        tunnel,
                is deportable.''.
    (b) Cancellation of Visa; Removal.--If any alien is convicted of a 
deportable crime described in section 237(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended by subsection (a)--
            (1) any visa issued to such alien shall immediately be 
        cancelled; and
            (2) not later than 60 days after such conviction, such 
        alien shall be removed from the United States.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41338 Summary Calendar

NICHOLAS J. QUEEN ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v. T.C. OUTLAW, WARDEN , Responde nt

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07

- CV

- 21

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Nicholas J. Queen , federal prisoner # 29623

- 037, is serving a 562

- month term of imprisonment for his convictions for bank robbery and related offenses

. In 2007, Queen filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 petition challenging the calculation of his sentence

. This court affirmed the judgment of the district

court. Queen v. Outlaw , 393 F. App’x 176, 177

- 78 (5th Cir. 2010). In September and October 2014 , Queen filed three identical motion s pursuant to Federal

* 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 August 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2016No. 15

- 41338

2 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (6) seeking rel ief from the judgment denying his § 2241 petition. The district court denied the motion s on the ground s that it had no authority to reconsider this court’s decision affirming the denial o f § 2241 relief, the motions were not timely, and they lacked merit

. Queen now appeals the denial of his Ru le 60(b) motions

. Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” F ED

. R. C IV

. P . 60(b)(6). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Stephens , 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). Although the one

- year filing period does not apply to Rule 60(b)(6) motions, such motion s “ must be made within a reasonable time.” F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(c)(1) . Queen did not meet this standard. See In re Osborne , 379 F. 3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Queen has not shown the existence of “ extraordinary circumstances , ” as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Hernandez v. Thaler , 630 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
No. 59005.

protest 242937-K (New York).

#### Joseph F. Mariano *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors of
OpenTV Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-74026, No. 333-52180, No. 333-42892, No. 333-37196 and No. 333-102944) on
Form S-8 of OpenTV Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated February 16, 2004,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of OpenTV Corp. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each
of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2003,
annual report on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. and subsidiaries.

Our report dated February 16, 2004 refers to the Company's adoption of Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets," as of January 1, 2002, as more fully described in Note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements.



                                                      /s/  KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 12, 2004
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

SF #1077577 v1 -1- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THELEN REID

& PRIEST LLP

A L

ROBERT P. BIEGLER, State Bar No. 88506 

BIEGLER, ORTIZ & CHAN LLP 

1107 9th Street, Suite 1025 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 444-3971 

Facsimile: (916) 444-3975 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PATRICIA MALONE KEANE 

ROBERT A. DOLINKO, State Bar No. 076256 

CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. 181557 

DEBORAH R. SCHWARTZ, State Bar No. 208934 

THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP 

101 Second Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 371-1200 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THOMSON FINANCIAL INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICIA MALONE KEANE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THOMSON FINANCIAL CO., INC., THE 

THOMSON CORPORATION, a Corporation, 

and DOES 1-5, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No.: CIV S-04-2537 DFL GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, 

through their undersigned counsel, that this action is dismissed with prejudice; each party shall 

bear its or her own costs and attorneys fees; and 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02537-DFL-GGH Document 31 Filed 07/18/06 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

27

28 

SF #1077577 v1 -2- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THELEN REID

& PRIEST LLP

A L

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Court will retain jurisdiction 

only to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement should that become necessary.

Dated: July 10, 2006 

THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP 

By /s/ Robert A. Dolinko, Esquire

Robert A. Dolinko 

Deborah R. Schwartz 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THOMSON FINANCIAL INC. 

Dated: July 10, 2006 

BIEGLER ORTIZ & CHAN LLP 

By /s/ Robert P. Biegler, Esquire 

Robert P. Biegler 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PATRICIA MALONE KEANE 

ORDER

Based on the above stipulation, 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ David F. Levi_________

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02537-DFL-GGH Document 31 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

June 19, 2003 

 

The Board of Directors 

 

and Shareholders 

 

Mobile PET Systems, Inc. 

 

2150 West Washington Street, Suite 110 

 

San Diego, California 92110 

 

As the independent public accountants for Mobile PET Systems, Inc. we hereby consent to the incorporation in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Mobile PET Systems,Inc., of our report dated September 25, 2002, regarding the June 30, 2002 and 2001, consolidated financial statements. We also consent to all other references to our company included in this annual report. 

 

PETERSON & Co. 

 

Peterson & Co. 

 

3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 500 

 

San Diego, California 92122-1089
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 IceWEB, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K /A for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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.  January 26, 2011/s/ John R. SignorelloJohn R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer and
principal executive officer  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 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH BARRETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-468-A)

Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Jack I. Hanly, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on March 28, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Barrett appeals from the district court’s order denying

his motion to modify and amend his sentence. Under 18 U.S.C.A. §

3582(c)(1)(B) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000), the court may not modify a

term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except in very narrow

circumstances not applicable here. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Barrett, No. CR-98-468-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2000).* We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED