alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10708 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ MACIAS, a/k/a Howdy, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-279-R
- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Rodriguez Macias appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine. He argues that the court erred by increasing his offense level based on the possession of a dangerous weapon and by holding him accountable for drug quantities reflected in notes found at his residence. We have reviewed the record and Macias's brief and AFFIRM Macias's sentence for the same reasons given by the district court at sentencing.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE FINANCE**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, the Vice President of Corporate Finance of Universal Travel Group
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely
      for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
      the
      Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
                August 5, 2008
            /s/
                Huijie GaoHuijie
                Gao
              Vice
                President of Corporate Finance
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 6, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 86 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 8- cr-8 00 04 -DMM -3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SAUL ACUNA-ACOSTA, a.k .a. El Gu ero , a.k .a. El Pri m o, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 6 , 20 10 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ri ch ardL. Ros enbaum , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Sau l Acu na -Aco st a in th isdi rectcri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andAcun a-Aco st a’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date:  August 12, 2008
    /s/ Richard S. KayName:
    Richard S. KayTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Edward DAVIS v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KH-1298.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Davis, Edward; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, habeas corpus and mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 278-833.

Denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN JONASSEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16377

D.C. No. 4:13

- cv

- 00792

- DCB

PSOT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Martin Jonassen appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We rev iew de novo the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 16377

district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Andrews v.

Cervantes , 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its

denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O ’ Loughlin v. Doe , 920 F.2d 614,

616 (9th Cir. 1990). We vacate and remand.

The district court revoked Jonassen’s in forma pauperis status without

considering Jonassen’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) , which made

plausible allegations that Jonassen was “under imminent dang er of serious physical

injury” at the time he lodged the TAC

. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews

,

493 F.3d at 1055 ( an exception to the Priso n Litigation Reform Act’s three strikes

rule applies if the complaint plausibly alleges that the prisoner faced imminent

danger at the time he filed the complaint ). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment

and remand for further proceedings

. The district court shall file the TAC docketed

on March 5, 2014.

Jonassen’s request for copies of all filings in the recor d, filed November 18,

2016, is granted in part. The Clerk shall send Jonassen a copy of the current

docket sheet and a copy of the court’s September 22, 2016 order.

All other pending requests and motions are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### William A. GAMBLE v. D.W. JESSEN & ASSOCIATES, a Partnership and D.W. Jessen, Individually.

No. 87-C-2015.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Gamble, William A.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 84-1216; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 83-1234.

Prior report: La.App., 509 So.2d 1041.

Denied. The result is correct.
#### Armin Bauer, Plaintiff, *v.*Charlotte Bauer, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,.

December 5, 1958.

*561*Albert, Wolk, Belous <& Deutsch*for plaintiff.

*Horowitz, Parker $ Horowitz*for defendant.

Cortland A. Johnson, J.

In this action for a separation and to impress a trust upon property in the State of New York and in the State of Florida, the plaintiff husband moves for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing with a divorce action which she instituted in Florida prior to the commencement of this action.

The defendant has cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending between the parties for the same cause and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Defendant’s first objection is without merit both because the parties are reversed and because the other action is in a foreign jurisdiction. *(General Investment Co.*v. *Interborough R. T. Co.,*200 App. Div. 794, affd. 235 N. Y. 133; *McClellan*v. *Steywart,*171 Misc. 514.)

The second objection in support of the cross motion is not well taken either, because as between husband and wife the rigid requirements of the Statute of Frauds are often relaxed and the statute in any event, is a matter of affirmative defense.

As to the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction, this does not appear to be the type of case that was before the court in *Garvin*v. *Garvin*(302 N. Y. 96). There the defendant in a separation action already pending in New York, where both parties had resided for many years, left for the Virgin Islands to get a divorce. An injunction to protect the wife’s marital status was held proper. This is not equivalent to holding that a New York resident is entitled to an injunction against a spouse who is a bona fide resident of another State.

The showing made here is that the wife purchased a house in Florida and established a permanent residence there over a year before she commenced an action for divorce on September 2, 1958. Thereafter, the present action was initiated while she was on a visit in New York. Under these circumstances, the issuance of an injunction would be an unwarranted interference with the orderly judicial processes of another State.

Both motions are denied.

Short-form order signed.
#### Thomas Carlton WILKINS v. STATE.

CR-91-1758.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 30, 1993.

Arthur Clarke, Mobile, for appellant.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Anita Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*On Return to Remand*

PATTERSON, Judge.

On May 7, 1993, we remanded this ease to the trial court with instructions that the state be required to file a response to Thomas Carlton Wilkins’s Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition *708for post-conviction relief and that the trial court file written findings of fact relating to the issues raised in the petition. 629 So.2d 705. The trial court complied with our instructions by holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition and making findings in regard to the numerous issues raised in Wilkins’s petition. Wilkins questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court, the legality of his sentence, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The trial court’s findings and its denial of the petition are supported by the record.

The trial court found that Wilkins had been properly -sentenced, but that a clerical error had been made on the case action summary sheet. He ordered that the case action summary sheet be corrected so that it would show that Wilkins was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment each in cases number 90-2164 and 90-2165, and that the sentences were to run concurrently with the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment in case number 90-2176. During the hearing on the petition it was disclosed that Wilkins had entered guilty pleas in the three cases as a result of a plea agreement, in which the state agreed that in return for the 3 guilty pleas, it would not prosecute Wilkins in 11 other burglary cases. When Wilkins learned that all cases against him could be restored to the docket if his guilty pleas were set aside, he, with advice of counsel, requested that the trial court deny his petition.

We find that the judgment 'of the trial court denying the petition is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
**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 American Cordillera Mining Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended May 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight Weigelt, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: July 21, 2014

|  

By:

/s/ Dwight Weigelt

 

 

Dwight Weigelt

 

 

CFO, Secretary, Treasurer, Director |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### ARCTIC STRUCTURES and National Auto and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Robert HARDCASTLE and Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board, Appellees.

No. 6476.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 18, 1983.

Clay A. Young, Delaney, Wiles, Hayes, Reitman & Brubaker, Inc., Anchorage, for appellants.

*450M. Ashley Dickerson, Anchorage, for ap-pellee, Robert Hardcastle.

Before BURKE, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, MATTHEWS and COMPTON, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the superior court herein set forth:1

> Arctic Structures and National Auto and Casualty Company appealed to the superior court the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board’s decision of 1 December 1980 which awarded Robert Hardcastle an increase in benefits under AS 23.30.-172 (repealed 1977) and amended AS 23.-30.190(2); both in effect at the time his injury was rated. The appellants asked this court to decide whether AS 23.30.155(1), which was in effect on the date of the injury but repealed at the time of rating, limited the employer’s liability.

> Mr. Hardcastle was injured on 19 October 1974 while employed by Arctic Structures. At the time of his injury AS 23.-30.155(1), AS 23.30.172 and AS 23.30.190 were in effect. On 22 May 1975 section .155(1), limiting recovery for permanent partial and temporary total disability to $30,000.00, was repealed and section .190 was amended. Ch. 83, §§ 1 and 5, SLA 1975. On 24 March 1976 Dr. Stover rated Mr. Hardcastle’s injury at a 40% loss in each leg. As of 23 March 1978, Mr. Hardcastle had received a maximum of $30,000.00 for both temporary and total and permanent partial disability. Because of the $30,000.00 limit of AS 23.30.155(1), the carrier discontinued further compensation. In April 1979 Mr. Hardcastle filed an adjusted claim to recover an additional $16,128.00 permitted under the 1975 amended section of AS 23.30.190(2). The Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board granted this adjustment in benefits on 1 December 1980.

> This court is not persuaded by appellants’ attempt to distinguish *State Workmen’s Compensation Bd. v. Delaney,*615 P.2d 5 (Alaska 1980), from the present case. *Delaney*is the controlling authority here. Section .172 was in effect both on the date of Mr. Hardcastle’s injury and the date of rating. Section .172 and *Hood v. State, Workmen’s Compensation Bd.,*574 P.2d 811, 815 (Alaska 1978), require a permanent partial disability to be compensated according to the statutory scheme in effect at the time of the initial rating. Since section .155 (1) was repealed at the time of Mr. Hardcastle’s rating, the employer’s liability is not limited by that statute. Therefore, based upon a thorough review of the parties’ briefs, authorities, and record on appeal, I affirm the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board’s December 1980 decision awarding Mr. Hardcastle an increase of benefits payable by the employer.

*Arctic Structures v. Hardcastle,*No. 3 AN-80-8674 C.A. (Alaska Super., Nov. 2, 1981). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

CONNOR, J., not participating.

1

. Editorial changes have been made.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 14, 

2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00004-CV

PEREGRINE OIL & GAS II, LLC, Appellant

V.

JAB ENERGY SOLUTIONS II, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-35327

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Both parties appealed from a judgment signed October 5, 2017. On March 5, 

2019, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss both appeals and release the 

supersedeas bond posted on behalf of appellant Peregrine Oil & Gas II, LLC. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We grant the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

 PER CURIAM 

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

 

**Certification**

 

I, JohnFitzpatrick, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of WII Components, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

a.             Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b.             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| **Date: November 12, 2004** |                    |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                        | /s/ John Fitzpatrick    |   |
|                        | John Fitzpatrick        |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Phantom 2 Checklist 

1. 'cnsure Propellers are secure 

2. CheCk fuselage for any cracks or broken parts 

3. Remove camera lens stabilizer 

4. Chedc battery for full charge 

5. Check oontroller for any damage 

6. Remove lens oover 

7. Ensure oontroller has fully charged batteries 

S. Reoord actual weather In aircraft log 

ITT-:R~Mffln em 

1. Tum on Phantom 2 battery and verity charge 

2. Turn on Camera and v@rify power on light 

3. Activate Bluetooth on oamera and verdy with Blue light 

4. Verrfy that GPS is boked on by 2 solid green lights 

5. Ensure area where intending to fly is dear of any obstaoles 

6. Ensure visual observer is in posifion to ensure clear path