alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 21

- 50077 Summary Calendar

**____________ Todd Ricks,** 

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus **Warden FNU LNU,** FCI Bastrop **,** Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CV

- 1041

**______________________________** Before **Stewart, Dennis,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Todd Ricks, federal prisoner # 83035

- 180, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the legality of his sentence s for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and maintaining a house used for manufacturing

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023No. 21

- 50077

2 methamphetamine. The district court determined that Ricks could not chall enge his sentence under § 2241 because he failed to satisfy the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A § 2255 motion is the primary vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal sentence. Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). However,

a prisoner may challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241 petition if he shows that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. § 2255(e); Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir . 2001). To make that showing, a prisoner must present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. The district court correctly concluded that Ricks had failed to identify a retroactively applicable Supreme Cou rt decision establishing that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Ricks essentially repeats those arguments on appeal. He accordingly fails to show that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
#### CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-64.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 4, 1970.

*231Leon H. Handley, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellant.

M.' W. Wells, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.

McCAIN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals dismissal of its amended complaint seeking declaratory relief as to its rights, duties and obligations as trustee-owner of certain lands subject to a restrictive covenant. We reverse.

In December 1962, defendant-appellee, Shell Oil Company, bought from Clayco Corporation the land on which it presently operates a gasoline station. The conveyance contained a covenant stating:

> “Grantor covenants that from the date hereof that no gasoline, lubricants or other petroleum products for motor vehicles shall be advertised, stored, sold or distributed on or from any other property now or hereafter owned or directly controlled by Grantor and described as follows:

> [Description of land]

> This covenant shall run with the land and shall bind the successors and assigns of Grantor and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Grantee.”

In September 1963 Clayco Corporation established a trust and conveyed land to the trustee, Citizens National Bank, plaintiff-appellant herein. This land was subject to the restrictive covenant.

Plaintiff by alleging itself to be the trustee and owner of the lands in question, qualified as a proper party having a sufficient interest in the land burdened by the restrictive covenant to maintain the action. Plaintiff’s right to sell these lands is a reasonable inference from the pleadings.1

We observe the covenant is without duration, and plaintiff has alleged changes in circumstances in support of its claim that the covenant is void.

The test as to the duration of a restrictive covenant on land use is ordinarily whether or not the original purpose and intention of the parties to such restrictive covenant can be reasonably carried out, in the light of the alleged materially changed conditions. The maxim applicable is “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” particularly where no specified reasonable term has been set out in the restrictive covenant.2

The amended complaint raises these issues. Whether they are sufficient to void the covenant is for determination in the lower court based upon the facts and evidence presented.

Plaintiff’s contention that the restrictive covenant is void under F.S. 542.12, F.S.A. is specifically rejected.

Accordingly, the order dismissing the amended complaint is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, C. J., and REED, J., concur.

1

. Kendry v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 23; Russell v. Community Blood Bank, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 749.

2

. Barton v. Moline Properties, Inc., 1935, 121 Fla. 683, 164 So. 551, 103 A.L.R. 725.
Case 1:05-cv-00197-MBC-SPB Document 13 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[104th Congress Public Law 125]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ125.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 883]]

Public Law 104-125
104th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
   To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers 
conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of Missouri 
         and Illinois. <<NOTE: Apr. 1, 1996 -  [H.J. Res. 78]>> 

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between Missouri and 
    Illinois creating the Bi-State Development Agency and the Bi-State 
    Metropolitan District provided that no power shall be exercised by 
    the Bi-State Agency under the provisions of article III of such 
    compact until such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency 
    by the legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an 
    Act of Congress; and
Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in order to 
    confer certain additional powers on such Bi-State Development 
    Agency: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the consent of 
Congress is hereby given to the additional powers conferred on the Bi-
State Development Agency of the Compact Between Missouri and Illinois 
approved under the Joint Resolution of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) by 
section 70.378 of the Act of May 26, 1993 (1993 Mo. Laws 382) and 
section 5 of Public Act 88-611, Laws of Illinois 1994.
    (b) <<NOTE: Effective date.>> The powers consented to in subsection 
(a) and conferred by the laws referred to in such subsection shall take 
effect on January 1, 1995.

    Sec. 2. <<NOTE: Applicability.>> The provisions of the Joint 
Resolution of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the 
additional powers approved under this joint resolution to the same 
extent as if such additional powers were conferred under the provisions 
of the compact consented to in such Joint Resolution.

    Sec. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
is expressly reserved.
    Sec. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress to require the 
disclosure and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State 
Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by the Congress.

    Approved April 1, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 78 (S.J. Res. 27):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-377 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 141 (1995):
                                    July 21, S.J. Res. 27 considered and 
                                        passed Senate.
                                                        Vol. 142 (1996):
                                    Mar. 12, H.J. Res. 78 considered and 
                                        passed House.
                                    Mar. 15, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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 IA Global, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
Scott, President 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

         (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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

         This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive and Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company with
the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not
be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.

                                        /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        President and Chief Financial Officer
                                        May 15, 2006
258 La. 346

#### CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION v. Paul A. DENNIS.

No. 51292.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1971.

In re: Chrysler Credit Corporation applying for writ of certiorari and review.

Application denied — the judgment is correct.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3013 

To permanently authorize the exemption of aliens working as fish processors 

from the numerical limitation on H–2B nonimmigrant visas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2023 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. KAINE, 

Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. CASSIDY, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permanently authorize the exemption of aliens working 

as fish processors from the numerical limitation on H– 

2B nonimmigrant visas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF ALIENS WORKING AS FISH 

4 PROCESSORS FROM THE NUMERICAL LIMITA5 TION ON H–2B NONIMMIGRANT VISAS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(g)(10) of the Immi7 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(10)) is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3013 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘The numerical limitations of 

2 paragraph (1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) The numer3 ical limitation under paragraph (1)(B)’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B)(i) The numerical limitation under paragraph 

6 (1)(B) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued 

7 a visa or otherwise provided status under section 

8 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) who is employed (or has received an 

9 offer of employment)— 

10 ‘‘(I) as a fish roe processor, a fish roe techni11 cian, or a supervisor of fish roe processing; or 

12 ‘‘(II) as a fish processor. 

13 ‘‘(ii) As used in clause (i)— 

14 ‘‘(I) the term ‘fish’ means fresh or saltwater 

15 finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of 

16 aquatic animal life, including the roe of such ani17 mals, other than marine mammals and birds; and 

18 ‘‘(II) the term ‘processor’ means any person en19 gaged in the processing of fish, including handling, 

20 storing, preparing, heading, eviscerating, shucking, 

21 freezing, changing into different market forms, man22 ufacturing, preserving, packing, labeling, dockside 

23 unloading, holding, and all other processing activi24 ties.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3013 IS

1 (b) REPEAL.—Section 14006 of the Department of 

2 Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–287) 

3 is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal  year ended June 30,  1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,786,582
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         731,398
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 19,163,138
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    135,617,811
<ALLOWANCE>                                    654,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,149,645
<DEPOSITS>                                 130,086,695
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,589,263
<LONG-TERM>                                 11,922,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           31,071
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,519,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             166,149,645
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             12,033,516
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,302,772
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               244,580
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            13,580,868
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,512,630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,501,051
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,079,817
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  120,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              13,226
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,283,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,787,940
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,369,190
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,369,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.42
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   244,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               575,985
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   53,310
<RECOVERIES>                                    11,675
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              654,350
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           654,530
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         91,000
        

</TABLE>
EX 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Rene Bernard, certify that:



1.

I have received this quarterly report of Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended February 28, 2002 of The Bralorne Mining Company, the registrant;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement 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, other than 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 we have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusion about effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officer 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:



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 control; 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.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not 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 regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:

June 9, 2004

/s/Rene Bernard



Rene Bernard

Chief Executive Officer

President and Director
----

----

|   | LANDLORD:                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Motor City Drive, LLC                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | /s/ Arvin Malkani                           |
|   | Vice President                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | Date: February 8, 2011                                                                                                                                              |
|   | TENANTS:                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | Technest Holdings, Inc.                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | /s/ Gino M. Pereira                                        |
|   | By: Gino M. Pereira                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | Date: February 8, 2011                                                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | Genex Technologies, Inc.                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | /s/ Gino M. Pereira                                                  |
|   | By: Gino M. Pereira                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | Date: February 8, 2011                                                                                                                                                        |