alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 02-61075

(Summary Calendar)

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OLEN MAFFETT POUND,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

Nos. 3:95-CV-135-P & 89-CR-42-S1

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Olen Maffett Pound appealsthe district court’s denial of his motion for relief

from the judgment denying his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. Pound seeks to reopen his initial

§ 2255 petition pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and to add new claims pursuant to
-2-

FED. R. CIV. P. 15. 

Because Pound invokes Rule 60(b) in an attempt to alter the judgment in his initial habeas

proceeding, his motion should be construed as a successive habeas petition. Hess v. Cockrell, 281

F.3d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 2002). Since Pound did not request leave from this Court to file a successive

habeas petition, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60(b) motion. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by thissection isfiled

in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider the application.”); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774

(5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[Section] 2244(b)(3)(A) acts as a jurisdictional bar to the district

court’s asserting jurisdiction over any successive habeas petition until this court has granted the

petitioner permission to file one.”).

Where, as here, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas

petition, “[o]ur jurisdiction extends not to the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the

error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Key, 205 F.3d at 774 (quoting New York Life Ins.

Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 882 (5thCir. 1998)). Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the

district court and DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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 Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName: Michael T. Moe Date: November 8, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6563

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL FREDDIE DAVIS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00320-TDS-1; 

1:12-cv-00341-WO-JEP)

Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Freddie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Michael Francis 

Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Freddie Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the the House of Lords by order of that court of 3 November 2004 in United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-89/05)

(2005/C 106/32)

Language of the case: English

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the the House of Lords (United Kingdom) of 3 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between United Utilities plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following question:

----

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).

----
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Southern States Sign
Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, David Ben Bassat, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and



2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.



|By:    | /s/ David Ben Bassat                                                         
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | David Ben Bassat                                                             
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
        Director
|Date:  | July 15, 2011                                                                



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
At DIA, we provide detailed information on foreign military capabilities and 

operating environments to United States military and government leaders. 

This information enables them to both prevent and decisively win wars. 

Our diverse workforce is skilled in military history, economics, physics, 

chemistry, world history, political science, bio-sciences, and computer 

science to name a few. 

To learn more about DIA, please visit our website or follow us on 

social media.

https://www.dia.mil

https://www.facebook.com/defenseintel

https://www.instagram.com/defenseintel 

https://twitter.com/defenseintel 

https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-intelligence-agency
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TERVAUGHN C. STURGIS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 600, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0304014538 (N)

§

§

§

 Submitted: December 21, 2018

 Decided: January 30, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 

motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s 

order, dated November 19, 2018, adopting the Commissioner’s report and 

recommendations, dated August 20, 2018,

1

and denying the appellant’s motion for 

postconviction relief should be affirmed.

2

 The appellant has expressly waived all of 

the claims he raised in the Superior Court, except for his claim that defects in his 

indictment meant he was illegally sentenced under Superior Court Criminal Rule 

35(a). As the Superior Court correctly recognized, the appellant’s challenges to his 

 

1

State v. Sturgis, 2018 WL 4002245 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2018).

2

State v. Sturgis, 2018 WL 6046759 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2018).
2

indictment are outside the limited scope of Rule 35(a).3 The Superior Court did not 

err in denying the appellant’s motion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 

and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

3

Sturgis, 2018 WL 6046759, at *4 (“Under Rule 35(a), the ‘narrow function’ is to correct illegal 

sentences, ‘not to re-examine errors at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of 

sentence.’”) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962)). See also Brittingham v. 

State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19371]



[[Page 45149]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine 
Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.

PLACE: Washington, DC

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Financial Matters.
    3. Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items and 
Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael J. Elston, Acting 
Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 
Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19371 Filed 8-31-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Citation Corporation               State of Organization

Berlin Foundry Corporation                                  Wisconsin
Bohn Aluminum, Inc.                                         Indiana
Camden Casting Center, Inc.                                 Tennessee
Castwell Products, Inc.                                     Illinois
Citation Automotive Sales Corp.                             Michigan
Citation Precision, Inc.                                    California
Citation Castings, Inc.                                     Alabama
Custom Products Corporation                                 Wisconsin
Dycast, Inc.                                                Delaware
Hi-Tech, Inc.                                               Indiana
Interstate Southwest, Ltd.                                  Texas
Interstate Forging Industries, Inc.                         Wisconsin
Iroquois Foundry Corporation                                Wisconsin
ISW Texas Corporation (subsidiary of Interstate             Delaware
       Forging Industries, Inc.)
Mabry Foundry Company, Ltd.                                 Texas
Mansfield Foundry Corporation                               Ohio
OBI Liquidating Corp.                                       New York
Southern Aluminum Castings Company                          Alabama
Texas Foundries, Ltd.                                       Texas
Texas Steel Corporation                                     Texas
TSC Texas Corporation                                       Delaware

                                      234
#### John Smyth et al., Appellants, v County of Suffolk, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), entered October 12, *7421989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff John Smyth sustained personal injuries after executing a surface dive into the ocean at Smith Point Beach in Suffolk County and striking his head on the ocean floor. In the instant action against the County of Suffolk, he alleged, *inter alia,*that the County failed to warn him of the allegedly dangerous condition existing on the ocean floor. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action, concluding, *inter alia,*that the defendant County owed no duty to warn the injured plaintiff of transitory ocean floor conditions. We affirm.

As this court has previously observed, "[o]ne who engages in water sports assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in that activity” *(Sartoris v State of New York,*133 AD2d 619, 620; *see also, Herman v State of New York,*63 NY2d 822; *Anello v Town of Babylon,*143 AD2d 714). Further, "[t]o be liable in damages for failure to warn of a dangerous condition, a property owner must have notice of the condition itself as well as the unreasonable risk it creates” *(Herman v State of New York, supra,*at 823; *La Rocco v State of New York,*8 AD2d 644). At bar, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was not duty bound to anticipate and protect against threats to swimmers arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor *(see, Herman v State of New York, supra).*

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Grupo Elektra S.A. de C.V.
                           --------------------------

                              List of Subsidiaries
                              --------------------


Grupo SYR, S.A. de C.V.
Elektra Comercial, S.A.
Elektrafin Comercial, S.A.
Grupo Hecali, S.A.
Salinas y Rocha, S.A.
Elektra Mexicana, S.A.
Comercios Elektra, S.A.
Entrega Especializada, S.A.
Almacenes Especializados, S.A.
Direccion Especial, S.A.
Electronica del Moral, S.A.
Inmuebles Selectos, S.A.
Mi Garantia Extendida, S.A.
Importaciones Electronicas Ribesa, S.A.
Inmuebles Ardoma, S.A.
Compania Operadora de Teatros, S.A.
Siglo XXI, S.A.
Direccion de Administracion Central, S.A.
Grupo Proasa, S.A.
Grupo Mercantil Finemsa, S.A.
Elmex Superior, S.A.
Mercadotecnia Tezontle, S.A.
Aerotraxis Metropolitanos, S.A.
Sistemas de Mision Estrategica, S.A.
Administrativos Empresariales, S.A.
Inmobiliaria Hecali, S.A.
THE ONE, S.A.
The One Internet, S.A.
Operadora SYR, S.A.
Colchones, S.A.
Intra Mexicana, S.A.
Elektra Transfer, S.A.
Mercantil Agricola, S.A.
Datacion y Supervision de Personal, S.A.
Importadora y Exportadora Elektra de El Salvador, S.A.
Comercializadora Elektra, S.A.
Elektra Dominicana, S.A.
Elektra del Peru, S.A.
Inmuebles Elektra, S.A.
Elektra Centroamerica, S.A.
Inmobiliaria Liur, S.A.
Colchones Coloso, S.A.
Direccion Sistematica Empresarial, S.A.
Operadoras en Servicios Comerciales, S.A.
Control y Direccion Administrativa, S.A.
Direccion de Administracion en Proyectos Aplicados, S.A.
Direccion de Administracion en Proyectos Especiales, S.A.
Mediciones y Representaciones Comerciales, S.A.
Gerencia Administrativas Operacionales, S.A.
Bienes Raices en Promocion del Centro, S.A.
Multinational Customer Services LLC
Investment Partners III, LLC
Cappello Investment Partners IV, LLC
Cappello Investment Partners V, LLC
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19703]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-18-041]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: September 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1189 (Review)(Large Power Transformers from 
Korea). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determination and views of the Commission by September 26, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 5, 2018.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-19703 Filed 9-6-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1​


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Sutter Rock Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark D. Klein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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 Registrant.

​/s/ Mark D. KleinName: Mark D. KleinDate: August 9, 2019
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2420

___________ David Lester, * * Appellant, * * v. * * John Byus, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellee, * * Lisa A. Roger, PHP Healthcare * Appeal from the United States Corporation, Arkansas Department of * District Court for the Correction; H. W. Thomas, Dr., Delta * Eastern District of Arkansas. Regional Unit, Arkansas Department * [UNPUBLISHED] of Correction; Mark Cashion, Delta * Regional Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Joe Ann Burnett, Delta * Regional Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction, originally sued as Janet * Burnett, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 1999 Filed: January 8, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.TheHonorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for th e 1 East ernDistrict of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of th e Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern Distric t of Arkansas. -2- ___________ PER CURIAM. David Lester, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court & s dismissal 1 of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. Lester claimed that defendant failed to provide him with proper me dical care for an eye condition. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dis missal was proper because Lester failed to offer evidence for holding defendant liable for the medical care he received othe r th anon a respondeat-superior basis. See Boyd v. Knox , 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir

. 1995). A ccordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny all of Lester & s pendin g motions. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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 Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName: Michael T. Moe Date: November 12, 2013
EXHIBIT 4.5.2  AGREEMENT TO CONVERT CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED NOTE TO SHARES OF THE COMPANYS COMMON STOCK
HALTER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.



December 23, 2003



Mr. Jason K. Wadzinski

President/CEO

Advant-e Corporation

2680 Indian Ripple Road

Dayton, OH 45440



Mr. Wadzinski,



This letter is to inform you of my request to convert $30,000 of the Convertible Subordinated Note dated September 25, 2001 that I hold into common stock of Advant-e Corporation.



Based on the conversion price of $1.06 per share, I am expecting to be issued 28,302 shares
of Advant-e Common Stock as per the Note Purchase Agreement dated September 25, 2001.



As of December 26, 2003, there is $1,138 of accrued interest that I would like paid in cash.



I will forward to you the original Convertible Subordinated Note as per the terms of the Note Purchase Agreement.



Sincerely,



|                      
|----------------------
|                      
|                      
|                      
|Tim Halter            
|Halter Financial Group



42
- TO: 
    - Date: 
    - Witness: 
    - Date_2: 
    - Text5: 
    - Text6: 
    - Text7: