alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 **The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARL OTIS SULLIVAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

NEVINS, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

NEVADA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-16489

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and PALLMEYER, District

Judge.**

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Petitioner Carl Otis Sullivan, a Nevada state prisoner serving consecutive

sentences for robbery and related crimes, appeals the district court’s judgment

dismissing his petition for habeas relief as untimely. We vacate and remand.

Sullivan’s federal habeas petition was timely filed because the time during

which his state habeas petition was pending is equitably tolled under Harris v.

Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2008), and Townsend v. Knowles, 562

F.3d 1200, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2009). First, although the district court has been

equivocal on this issue, we are satisfied by its initial finding that Sullivan was

diligent in pursuing his rights. The Nevada trial court committed several

procedural missteps in Sullivan’s case, prolonging the pendency of his state

proceedings. In an effort to mitigate these difficulties, the parties stipulated that

Sullivan’s state petition should be treated as timely and the state trial court agreed. 

Though the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately held the stipulation to be invalid and

ruled that his state petition was untimely, Sullivan was not guilty of any oversight

or negligence in relying on the reasonable representations of both the state trial

court and the state’s stipulation. Throughout his state proceedings, Sullivan

continued to actively pursue his case and ultimately filed his federal petition within

one year of the termination of his state post-conviction review. Second, as in

Harris, Sullivan asserts that he relied on controlling Ninth Circuit precedent in
3

Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 727-28 (9th Cir. 2001), in waiting to file his

federal habeas petition. We do not read Harris and Townsend as requiring more. 

See Harris, 515 F.3d at 1054, 1055; Townsend, 562 F.3d at 1206. Sullivan has

therefore satisfied the requirements for equitable tolling.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Sullivan v. Nevins

No. 09-16489

RYMER, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I join in the judgment. 

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
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 China Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended february 28, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
WenXiang Ding, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
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; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








/s/
WenXiang Ding





WenXiang
Ding


Chief
Executive Officer


Date:  April
15, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Energy Corporation  and will be retained by China Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Carl Guy PIPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1838.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 26, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary 0. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

Appellant, Carl Guy Piper, challenges the trial court’s assessment of $846.25 in court costs in the written judgment and sentence where the trial judge failed to notify him at sentencing that such costs would be imposed. The only costs announced at sentencing were $50 for public defender services and $20 for the crime victim fund. We therefore strike all costs other than the $70, without prejudice to the state seeking reassessment upon proper notice to the defendant. *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); *Sescon v. State,*506 So.2d 45 (Fla.2d DCA 1987).

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1979 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain fiberglass sheets used to make 

ceiling tiles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain fiberglass sheets 

used to make ceiling tiles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FIBERGLASS SHEETS USED TO MAKE 

4 CEILING TILES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1979 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Thin smooth nonwoven fiberglass sheets, approximately 

0.4 mm to 0.8 mm thick, 

comprised principally of a 

blend of 8 micron and 10 micron glass fibers bound in an 

acrylic latex binder crosslinked with a melamine-formaldehyde resin of a kind primarily used as acoustical facing for ceiling panels (provided for in subheading 

7019.32.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
# 1

# 2

# 3

# 4

# 5

# 6

Changes between CWNS 2008 and CWNS 2012 to enable the Gap Approach Option Indicates Gap Facility

Year and first month of local fiscal year

# 7 Number of connections or accounts

Not applicable to Asset Management Analysis Needs

# 8 By default facility address zip code is populated. Lookup will allow selection of other service areas zip codes Revenue & expenses is a sub tab under Needs tab

Future year values for 20 years will be auto - populated based on year 1 and using escalation factors from Department of Labor and other sources. Auto

- populated values can be updated. If the auto - populated values are updated the future values will be re - calculated accordingly.

Calculated using zip code(s)
CAS-No: 

3 2 1

0

K
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert Wayne COOK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-7086.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 27, 2003.

Sheldon J. Sperling, U.S. Attorney, Linda A. Epperley, Office of the United States Attorney, Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barron L. Derryberry, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Michael A. Abel, Federal Public Defender, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TACHA, Chief Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The United States appealed from the district court’s dismissal of the indictment against Robert Wayne Cook for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the United States filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We GRANT the motion to dismiss and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         434,812
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,737,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     98,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,385,994
<PP&E>                                       6,993,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                 611,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,260,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,685,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,634,412<F1>
<COMMON>                                    15,595,477
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,871,824)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,260,215
<SALES>                                      2,684,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,684,869
<CGS>                                        1,306,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,851,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,086,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,265,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,265,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,265,490)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
<FN>
<F1>As of 09-30-00, there are 535,000 shares of cumulative convertible preferred
stock, recorded at $4,634,412, net of offering costs.
<F2>Includes ($14,638,004) of accumulated deficit, ($1,233,153) of deferred stock
compensation, and ($627) treasury stock.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2306 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2306

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
               equipment used for working iron or steel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
               equipment used for working iron or steel.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT USED FOR WORKING IRON OR 
              STEEL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.83 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain manufacturing 
equipment used for working iron or steel) is amended by striking the 
date in the effective column period and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM ABDUR

- RAHIM,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 111 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28 th day of February , 202 3

, the Application “for Extraordinary

Relief Pursuant to Rule 3309 [and] 42 Pa.C.S. § 726, and King’s Bench Powers,” the

Application for Stay, and the Application for an Expedited Schedule are DENIED.
Exhibit
31.1




Certification


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act




I,
Gregory Webster, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Fund.com 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




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




(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:           November
14, 2008




/s/ Gregory
Webster


Name:     Gregory
Webster


Title:
            Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### Aila JANTUNEN, Appellant, v. Kauko JANTUNEN, Appellee. Kauko JANTUNEN, Appellant, v. Aila JANTUNEN, Appellee. Kauko JANTUNEN, Appellant, v. Aila JANTUNEN, Appellee.

Nos. 85-2604, 4-86-1095 and 4-86-1896.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1987.

J. Mark Maynor of Beverly & Freeman, West Palm Beach, for Aila Jantunen.

Barbara J. Compiani of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Montgomery, Searcy & Denney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Kauko Jantu-nen.

PER CURIAM.

A review of the record fails to disclose an abuse of discretion by the vacation of a default and final judgment. See *Zimmerman v. Vinylgrain Industries, Inc.,*464 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Therefore, we affirm in No. 4-86-1896. In view of this affirmance, the appeals in Nos. 4-86-1095 and 85-2604 have been rendered moot and, accordingly, are dismissed.

Affirmed in No. 4-86-1896. Dismissed in Nos. 4-86-1095 and 85-2604.

HERSEY, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.
#### In re David Paul STEINER.

No. 87-OB-0059.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 12, 1987.

In re Steiner, David Paul; applying for permission to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination.

Permission to take bar exam granted.
EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 (A)

I, Lavi Krasney, CEO of CDOOR CORP., (the "registrant"), certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CDoor Corp.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this 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-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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

<PAGE>

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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

                                                         Date: October 11, 2006

                                                         /s/ Lavi Krasney
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Lavi Krasney
                                                         CEO
#### Joseph R. TRUJILLO v. James M. BOONE, Peter J. Abadie, et al.

No. 89-C-0602.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Trujillo, Joseph R.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CA-1426; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “I”, No. 87-14063.

Prior report: La.App., 639 So.2d 894.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Crystal Melody Meekins, Relator

Appellate case number: 01-17-00696-CV

Trial court case number: 12-FD-3066

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Galveston County

On September 11, 2017, relator, Crystal Melody Meekins, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent county judge to set an immediate hearing 

on relator’s first amended motion for enforcement of possession or access and order to 

appear and to vacate the respondent’s August 7, 2017 “Order to Transfer” in the 

underlying petition to modify the parent-child relationship. Relator has filed one volume 

of a sworn mandamus record, including three volumes of a reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.7.

The Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by any real 

party in interest. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed 

within 20 days from the date of this order. See id. 2, 52.4.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 19, 2017
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-82525) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-66913, 333-44877,
333-43905, 333-36527, 333-26869 and 333-24753) of Verity, Inc. of our report
dated June 17, 1999 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, CA
July 12, 1999