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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10599 Conference Calendar

JOHN T. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-01623

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John T. Espinoza has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s unfiling of his fifth postjudgment motion to vacate the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which has already been affirmed on direct appeal by this court. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Espinoza is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on appealNo. 03-10599 -2- because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Espinoza has not made a meritorious challenge to the district court’s denial of IFP and has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Espinoza’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Espinoza is also cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Espinoza should review any newly filed appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING GIVEN.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Clinton WOODARD, Appellee.

No. 73-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District,

July 25, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Raymond O. Gross, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, State of Florida, appeals the granting of a motion to suppress, pursuant to the authority granted in F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A. Clinton Woodard, appellee, was observed by a member of the St. Petersburg Police Department exiting from a bar. The officer observed that the bar was suddenly being vacated *en masse*by all of its occupants and the officer, being familiar with this particular bar, knew from past experiences that when that bar emptied of its patrons it was either the result of a stabbing or shooting or someone being in possession of a dangerous weapon. He stopped his patrol car and observed the appellee, the last to emerge, wearing a banlon shirt which had a bulge on the front of his waistband. He asked appellee if he had a weapon and attempted to reach up and pat the bulge, wherewith appellee pushed his arm away. We must conclude, although the record does not so reflect, that the officer in fact found the weapon because the appellee was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

The only testimony was that of the officer and at the conclusion of the motion to suppress the trial judge entered its order and said to the effect, that, while the police may have had authority under the “stop- and-frisk law” to detain the appellee and while the officer may have had reason to believe all was not well, probable cause did not exist and suppressed the introduction of the weapon.

*701This question regarding the “stop-and-frisk law,” F.S. § 901.151, F.S.A., has been succinctly and clearly discussed in Thomas v. State, 250 So.2d 15 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971); and based on the authority of that case, we reverse the trial judge’s order to suppress.

It is clear from the uncontroverted evidence of the police officer that he was familiar with the “goings on” surrounding the Manhattan Bar, that he knew of past occurrences, and that he observed this particular appellee with a bulge in his waistband. There was an abundance of reason to exercise the authority granted in Florida’s “stop-and-frisk law.”

The order granting motion to suppress is therefore reversed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Irvin E. WILLIAMS v. 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON.

No. 61875.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1978.

In re: Irvin E. Williams, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied. Moot.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4956

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALAN ANDREW SARVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-02-3-AW)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 9, 2005

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward C. Sussman, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Allen F.

Loucks, United States Attorney, Patrick M. Pericak, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alan Andrew Sarvis pled

guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

(2000). Under the terms of his plea agreement, Sarvis waived the

right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He was sentenced on

June 28, 2002, to 262 months’ imprisonment. Based on Sarvis’

substantial assistance, the Government moved for a four-level

downward departure in Sarvis’ sentence. After conducting a hearing

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), the court resentenced Sarvis in

October 2004 to 168 months’ imprisonment. He now seeks to

challenge his sentence under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005). 

Although the Government argues that Sarvis’ appeal is

barred by the waiver of his right to appeal in his plea agreement,

we find that, in any event, Sarvis cannot assert a Booker claim in

the context of an appeal from resentencing pursuant to Rule 35(b).

A final judgment is one where the judgment of conviction has been

rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for

petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari has expired. Allen v.

Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 258 n.1 (1986). A later modification to a

sentence does not affect the date on which the judgment of

conviction became final. See United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d

139, 143 (4th Cir. 2001). To the extent Sarvis seeks to revisit
- 3 -

his original sentence under Booker, his appeal is untimely.

Sarvis’ judgment became final upon the expiration of the ten-day

period to appeal his sentence, i.e., July 8, 2002. Sarvis cannot

now resurrect his direct appeal simply because the district court

resentenced him pursuant to a Rule 35(b) proceeding. 

Furthermore, it is well established that this court does

not review a defendant’s appeal of the extent of a downward

departure unless the departure resulted in an illegal sentence or

resulted from an incorrect application of the guidelines. United

States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing 18

U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000)). Finding neither circumstance present, we

dismiss this appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 98-2064

             LEONARD PETRICCA AND LAWRENCE PETRICCA,

                     Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                v.

                    JAMES E. COPPOLA, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Leonard Petricca and Lawrence Petricca on brief pro se.
     Joyce Frank, Katharine I. Goree and Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees Dennis Comee and
City of Gardner.






June 28, 1999




     Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal
as well as the appellants' brief and the memorandum of law
submitted by appellees Dennis Comee and the City of Gardner.  We
affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's
memorandum and order, dated May 27, 1998.  Nothing in appellants'
proffer suggests that any amendment would state a viable claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. � 1983.
     The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed.
     The motion for reconsideration of our order of February 16,
1999 is denied.
     Treating appellants' "formal complaint" as a motion for
sanctions, it is denied.
```
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 Aurum Resources Corp. (the "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  January 31,  2011 as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  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 to his 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.



Date: February 7, 2011





/s/ Danil Shpeyzer

__________________________

Danil Shpeyzer, President,

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OSCAR APONTE ROSARIO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CR-00-47-4, CA-02-55-4)

Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oscar Aponte Rosario, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Aponte Rosario seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Rosario has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003

WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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.

DISMISSED
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 this Quarterly Report of WTTJ Corp, on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Klamka, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on form 10-Q for the year ending March 31 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and March 31, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of WTTJ Corp.  May 7, 2012By:/s/ Peter KlamkaPeter KlamkaChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Robert J. PERRY, Appellee.

No. 66-630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 18, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1967.

*87Dean, Adams, George & Wood, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellant.

Oscar C. Edrington, Miami, Montague Rosenberg, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The garnishee, American Security Insurance Company, appeals a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-garnishor, Robert J. Perry. The appellant has presented five points on appeal, all of which argue in essence that there was a genuine issue of material fact upon appellant’s claimed defense that its policy was rendered unenforceable by its insured’s lack of co-operation. The claimed issue was based upon the failure of one of the insured to appear at trial.

It affirmatively appears without genuine issue that the defense was not available under the facts of this case for two reasons: (1) The insurer failed to make an adequate effort to locate the insured. Cf. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Vliet, 148 Fla. 568, 4 So.2d 862, 139 A.L.R. 767; (2) the insured’s absence at the trial was not prejudicial to the defense of the cause of action because the insured had by admissions in the record eliminated himself as a material witness. Cf. Barnes v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Fla. App.1962, 146 So.2d 119; American Fire and Casualty Company v. Collura, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 784.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

          - [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The State of Oklahoma entered into compact amendments with the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma governing certain forms of class III gaming; this notice announces the approval of the State of Oklahoma Gaming Compact Non-house-Banked Table Games Supplement between the State of Oklahoma and the Otoe Missouria Tribe of Indians, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma.

# DATES:

The compact amendments take effect on August 27, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701*et seq.,*                     the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The compact amendments authorize the Tribes to engage in certain additional class III gaming activities, provide for the application of existing revenue sharing agreements to the additional forms of class III gaming, and designate how the State will distribute revenue sharing funds.                

Dated: August 10, 2018.

Tara Sweeney,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2018-18424 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           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  Quarterly  Report  of  Advanced  Cellular,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  December 31, 2010,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as the Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  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 the best of my 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.


By: /s/ Nir Eliyahu
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nir Eliyahu
    President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director
    (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal
    Accounting Officer)
    February 2, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17914]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate 
Receiverships

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for the institutions listed 
below, intends to terminate its receivership for said institutions.

                                   Notice of Intent To Terminate Receiverships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
               Fund                    Receivership name             City              State      appointment of
                                                                                                     receiver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10458............................  Truman Bank.............  Saint Louis........  MO                  09/14/2012
10521............................  The Woodbury Banking      Woodbury...........  GA                  08/19/2016
                                    Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The liquidation of the assets for each receivership has been 
completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance 
with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to 
proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receiverships will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receiverships shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of any of the receiverships, such comment must be made in 
writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and 
be sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of the above-mentioned 
receiverships will be considered which are not sent within this time 
frame.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on August 15, 2018.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17914 Filed 8-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
<PAGE>


                            IGEN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                    FORM 10-Q

                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                         JUNE 30,
                                                                     2000            1999
                                                                 --------        --------
<S>                                                           <C>             <C>
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding               15,589          15,366
                                                                 --------        --------

Net loss                                                         $ (5,131)       $ (5,073)

Plus accrued Series B convertible preferred stock dividend           (542)           (520)
                                                                 --------        --------
Net loss attributed to common shareholders                       $ (5,673)       $ (5,593)
                                                                 ========        ========

Net loss per share - basic and diluted                           $  (0.36)       $  (0.36)
                                                                 ========        ========

</TABLE>
#### Andrew Jackson ARNETT, Jr., Petitioner, v. Ray WILSON, Sheriff of Okaloosa County, Respondent.

No. 43513.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. *J.,*and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.