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

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and, |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:  November 15, 2010   |   | /s/ Robert S. DeMeulemeester    |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |   | Robert S. DeMeulemeester                       |
|                                            |   | Chief Financial Officer                        |
|                                            |   |                                           |
# Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston , Texas 77002

- 2066 S HERRY R ADACK

C HIEF J USTICE

T ERRY J ENNINGS

E VELYN K EYES

L AURA C ARTER H IGLEY

J ANE B LAND

J IM S HARP

M ICHAEL M ASSENGALE

H ARVEY B ROWN

R EBECA H UDDLE

J USTICES C HRISTOPHER A. P RINE

C LERK OF THE C OURT

J ANET W ILLIAMS

C HIEF S TAFF A TTO RNEY

P HONE : 713

- 274

- 2700

F AX : 713

- 755

- 8131

www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us



## June 19, 2013

Jennifer Turner

The Law Office of J. D. Turner,

PLLC

P.O. Box 1241

Houston, TX 77251 Stephen E. Garner

The Garner Law Firm

7660 Woodway, Ste 390

Houston, TX 77063

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01

- 12

- 01120

- CV

Trial Court Case Number: 1006566

Style: Andre Martinez v. Abraham Romero

Please replace the attached, corrected page 1 for page 1 of the opinion and the attached, corrected

judgment with the judgment issued on April 23, 2013 in the above referenced cau se. The

corrected was necessary so that the documents reflect the correct trial court case number.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court

By Michelle Gentile, Chief Deputy Clerk

Cc: Stan Stanart

Hon. Theresa Chang

# Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston , Texas 77002

- 2066 S HERRY R ADACK

C HIEF J USTICE

T ERRY J ENNINGS

E VELYN K EYES

L AURA C ARTER H IGLEY

J ANE B LAND

J IM S HARP

M ICHAEL M ASSENGALE

H ARVEY B ROWN

R EBECA H UDDLE

J USTICES C HRISTOPHER A. P RINE

C LERK OF THE C OURT

J ANET W ILLIAMS

C HIEF S TAFF A TTO RNEY

P HONE : 713

- 274

- 2700

F AX : 713

- 755

- 8131

www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us



## June 19, 2013

Library Service

Lexis Nexis

9473 Springboro Pike

Miamisburg, OH 45342

- 4425 Opinions Clerk

West Group D4

- 40

610 Opperman Drive

Egan, MN 55123

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01

- 12

- 01120

- CV

Trial Court Case Numbe r: 1006566

Style: Andre Martinez v. Abraham Romero

Please replace the attached, corrected page 1 for page 1 of the opinion and the attached, corrected

judgment with the judgment issued on April 23, 2013 in the above referenced cause. The

corrected was necessary so that the documents reflect the correct trial court case number.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court

By Michelle Gentile, Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40883

Summary Calendar

KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

U.S. PENITENTIARY WARDEN FRANK LARA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CV-207

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kelvin Andre Spotts, federal prisoner # 05613-088, was convicted of 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 

cocaine, and cocaine base; using and carrying firearms during and in relation 

to a drug trafficking crime; and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. 

He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

 

* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40883 Document: 00514530817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
No. 17-40883

2

wherein he argued that in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 

(2016), United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.), supplemented by 854 

F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 

2016), his prior Georgia drug conviction no longer qualified as a predicate 

felony offense for purposes of a sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851. 

Spotts contends that the district court erred in determining that he failed to 

satisfy the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

Our review is de novo. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th 

Cir. 2005). Because Spotts challenges the legality of his sentence, rather than 

the manner in which it is being executed, his claim is properly construed as 

arising under § 2255. See id. at 425-26. Nevertheless, under the savings clause 

of § 2255(e), a § 2241 petition may be considered if Spotts shows that § 2255 is 

“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To 

satisfy § 2255(e)’s saving clause, Spotts must establish that (1) his claim is 

“based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes 

that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and (2) 

his claim was “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have 

been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. 

United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

As the district court correctly determined, Spotts has failed to make such 

a showing. See id. at 904. We have repeatedly held that challenges to the 

validity of a sentencing enhancement do not satisfy the savings clause of 

§ 2255(e). See, e.g., In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Padilla, 

416 F.3d at 426-27.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40883 Document: 00514530817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATE
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
on Form 10-Q of Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Blodgett, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended;
  and,





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





Dated:  May
      12, 2009
              /s/ Robert M. BlodgettRobert
      M. BlodgettChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of Hawk Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Gilbride,
Vice President - Finance and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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/ THOMAS A. GILBRIDE
-----------------------
Thomas A. Gilbride
Vice President - Finance and Treasurer

February 24, 2003

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other
purpose.

                                       34
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Russell SANBORN, Respondent.

No. 71416.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 23, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision *San-born v. State,*513 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which that court found false imprisonment is a necessarily lesser included *1170offense of kidnapping, and in so doing acknowledged conflict with *Williamson v. State,*510 So.2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the Third District in the instant case and disapprove *Williamson.*

The pertinent parts of section 787.01, Florida Statutes (1987), concerning the offense of kidnapping provide:

> (l)(a) The term “kidnapping” means forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against his will and without lawful authority, with intent to:

> 1. Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.

> 2. Commit or facilitate commission of any felony.

> 3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person.

> 4. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

The pertinent parts of section 787.02, Florida Statutes (1987), concerning false imprisonment similarly provide:

> (l)(a) The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against his will with any purpose other than those referred to in s. 787.01.

The Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases list false imprisonment as a category one necessarily lesser included offense of the crime of kidnapping and require those instructions be given. *See*Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) at 260. *Accord Cabe v. State,*408 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), *review denied,*435 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1983). A comparison of sections 787.-01(l)(a) and 787.02(l)(a) reveals they are identical except for the question of intent. We find the general intent of section 787.-02(l)(a)(false imprisonment) is included in the specific intent of section 787.-01(l)(a)(kidnapping), consequently false imprisonment is a necessarily lesser included offense.

Accordingly, we find false imprisonment is a necessarily lesser included offense of the crime of kidnapping and approve the decision of the Third District in the instant case, while disapproving the decision of the Fourth District in *Williamson.*

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

SHAW, J., concurs in result only.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1225 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-269-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred ROBINSON, Appellee.

No. 87-1644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1988.

*1083Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN, J., and JOSEPH P. McNULTY, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from the trial court’s departure downward from the sentencing’ guidelines.

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of sale and three counts of possession of cocaine. His scoresheet was tabulated for a total of 115 points, which called for a guidelines sentence of from two and one-half to three and one-half years. The trial judge deviated from the guidelines downward and imposed upon defendant one year of community control with county jail time (and recommended work release) as a condition. Two reasons were given for the departure: (1) the small amount of cocaine involved in this case, and (2) defendant’s successful completion of his prior probation coupled with the fact that he had never been incarcerated. Neither ground is permissible.

A small amount of drugs involved as a ground for downward departure was rejected in *State v. Koopman,*519 So.2d 613 (Fla.1988). *Cf Atwaters v. State,*519 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1988) (rejecting quantity of drugs as reason for upward departure). The first reason thus falls.

Prior criminal history, including a prior probationary period whether satisfactorily performed or not, undeniably must be factored into the guidelines score.1 It follows that if a prior term of probation must be counted in guidelines scoring, it would be incongruous thereafter to subtract it by the mere device of a downward departure for having satisfactorily completed it. *Cf. State v. Holcomb,*481 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The second reason falls.

The sentence imposed herein must therefore be vacated and set aside and the cause is remanded for the appropriate imposition of a sentence within the recommended guidelines of two and one-half to three and one-half years.

1

. A sentence to probation must be predicated on a prior determination of guilt, and thus falls within the definition of "conviction” within the purview of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(2).
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Leonard A. Foxman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2006                     /s/ Leonard A. Foxman   Leonard A. Foxman   *Chief Executive Officer and President*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpaceCommunications, Inc. (the “*Company*”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for thequarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “*Report*”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|               | /s/  Mark Endry          |
|--------------------|--------------------------|
| July 19, 2005 | Mark  Endry              |
|               | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 40075 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Abigail Nunez,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 1097

- 3

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

The attorney appointed to represent Abigail Nunez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Nunez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 11, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40075 Document: 00515974636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021No. 21

- 40075

2 rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 21-40075 Document: 00515974636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
#### Harry A. STEWART, Sr., and Betty D. Stewart v. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, VICKSBURG, Mississippi.

No. 58106.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1988.

Phillip M. Nelson, Kirk & Nelson, Ridge-land, for appellants.

Edley H. Jones, III, Ward, Martin *&*Terry, C.E. Sorey, II, Ramsey, Andrews, Sorey & Ramsey, Vicksburg, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; John E. Ellis, Judge.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Larry Eugene THIGPEN, Jr. v. Leroy STERN, et al.

No. 87-C-0811.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied June 12,1987.

In re Stem, Leroy et al.; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18426-CA; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. *“F”,*No. 84-3278.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1050.

Denied. The result is correct.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., concur in the denial for reasons assigned by Judge Sexton in his concurrence.

DENNIS and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.