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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6372

AUBREY BRIAN EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00330-RGD-TEM-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aubrey Brian Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Aubrey Brian Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Edwards’

motions for bail or release pending appeal and for transcripts at

government expense. 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

CERTIFICATIONS 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
Perfumania Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 1, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael W. Katz, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 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/ Michael W. KatzMichael W. KatzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 14, 2009
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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



/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President, Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2009
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐469/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC ­ – Recognition of professional qualifications – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
#### Richard S. Zinman, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Marlene W. Zinman, Deceased, Respondent, v Church Charity Foundation of Long Island et al., Defendants, and Joan V. Dobbs, Appellant.

— In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant Joan Veronica Dobbs appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated December 7, 1988, which, after a trial at which the jury concluded that the appellant committed medical malpractice in her treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent, but was unable to reach a verdict on the issue of proximate cause, (a) directed the entry of judgment upon a jury questionnaire finding the appellant negligent, and (b) directed a new trial upon the limited issues of whether the negligence found by the jury was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s decedent’s death, and if so, the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered December 27, 1988, which, *inter alia,*held that the defendant Joan Veronica Dobbs was negligent in the care and treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the order is vacated, and a new trial of all issues is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of an interlocutory judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the interlocutory judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). .

Under the circumstances of this case, where the issue of whether the appellant departed from accepted standards of medical practice in her treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent is so interwoven with or related to that of causation that the evidence as to the latter is interdependent with that required to establish the former, the court improvidently exercised its *834discretion in ordering a partial retrial before a different jury *(see,*CPLR 4404 [a]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE FORM 10K FOR THE
ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000908179
<NAME> LUCILLE FARMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,924,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,750,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   132,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,785,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,537,000
<PP&E>                                      12,221,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,630,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,156,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,791,000
<BONDS>                                      8,163,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,663,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,156,000
<SALES>                                     46,048,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,048,000
<CGS>                                       42,366,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,366,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             505,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                732,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            729,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   729,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
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 Treasure Mountain Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
Lane Clissold, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/   Lane Clissold
----------------------------------
Lane Clissold
Principal Accounting Officer
August 19, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Performance Food Group Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 1, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned certifies, 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) 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/ Robert C. Sledd
    -------------------
    Robert C. Sledd
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    March 17, 2005

By: /s/ John D. Austin
    -------------------
    John D. Austin
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    March 17, 2005
# C_2008064EN.01004301.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/43

---

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v Commission

(Case T-477/07)

(2008/C 64/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofra srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

Lodato Gennaro & Co.

---
# C_2010134EN.01000401.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

(Case C-325/08) (1)

1

(Article 39 EC - Freedom of movement for workers - Restriction - Professional football players - Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training - Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation - Justification - Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

2010/C 134/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympique Lyonnais SASP

Applicant:

Defendant: Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — National provision obliging a football player to pay compensation to the club which trained him when, at the end of his training period, he signs a professional contract with a club of another Member State — Barrier to the freedom of movement for workers — Possible justification of such a restriction in the need to encourage the recruitment and training of young professional players

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFUE does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.

A scheme such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way which is unrelated to the actual costs of the training, is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
# C_2021182EN.01001302.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-708/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Aluminium foil originating in China - Slightly modified aluminium foil - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Locus standi in an action for annulment)

(2021/C 182/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), made by decision of 21 August 2019, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fredrick Lynn CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11601

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., James Wesley Hendrix', Assistant- U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Douglas Anthony Morris, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, •Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Fredrick Cain appeals his sentence in regard to the treatment of his conviction under Tex; Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) as a “serious drug offense” for purposes of an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Finding his argument foreclosed by circuit precedent, we affirm.

I.

Cain pleaded guilty of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction (Count I) and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (Count II). The presentehce report (“PSR”) identified three1 Texas drug convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, Tex Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a), triggering enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The district court overruled Cain’s objection and sentenced him, within the enhanced range, to 192 months for Count I with a concurrent 36 months for Count II.

II.

The district court did not err in ruling that Cain’s convictions were serious drug offenses. A .conviction under . Section 481.112(a) qualifies for the ACCA enhancement under § 924(e).2 Cain acknowledges that binding circuit precedent forecloses his position but' contends that *United States v. Johnson,*135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), *563and *Torres v. Lynch,*— U.S. ——, 136 S.Ct. 1619, 194 L.Ed.2d 737 (2016),. undermine that precedent. We disagree.

*Johnson*addressed the residual clause under the violent-felonies portion of the ACCA, which *•Wiribnsh*and *Vickers*distinguished from the serious-drug-offense portion. *Torres’s*discussion of how to define “described” in the Immigration and Nationality Act does not undermine *Win-bush’s*and *Vickers’s*discussions of the word “involving” in the ACCA. Those decisions based -the interpretation of § 924(e) on an analysis ■ of *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and the statutory context of the ACCA.3

Because no Supreme Court decisions “expressly or implicitly”4 overrule *Win-bush*or *Vickers,*we AFFIRM.

1

,, The PSR listed four convictions as qualifying under the ACCA, but the government conceded at sentencing that the fourth did not support an ACCA sentence.

2

. *See United States v. Vickers,*540 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Winbush,*407 F.3d 703 (5th Cir. 2005).

3

. *See Vickers,*540 F.3d at 365; *Winbush,*407 F.3d at 707-08 (citing *United States v. King,*325 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003)).

4

. *United States v. Tanksley,*848 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation' omitted).
EX-23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8’s of ECO2 Plastics, Inc. (formerly known as ITEC Environmental Group, Inc.) previously filed on September 28, 2007 (SEC File # 333-146394), January 23, 2008 (SEC File # 333-148821) and March 31, 2008 (SEC File # 333-150002) of our report dated
March 19, 2009 on the financial statements of ECO2 Plastics, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years then ended.





SALBERG & COMPANY, P.A.


Boca Raton, Florida


September 14, 2009
May 25, 2023

Need Training Assistance with Veterinary Services Process Streamlining (VSPS)? 

Did you know VSPS Network Associates are available to assist you with day to day training needs in addition to

scheduled formal training sessions? If you use VSPS and need some training assistance, have a question, or you just 

want to explore VSPS capabilities, please email or call a network associate. 

To reach the first available VSPS Network Associate, email:

vsvspstrainingnetwork@usda.gov

VSPS Network Associates Map

Network Associate Location Time Zone Telephone 1 Telephone 2

Georgie Berry Oroville, WA Pacific 530-615-1727

Anthony Dank Duluth, MN Central 218-343-8617 651-234-5680

Martha Elmore Lincoln, NE Central 402-429-0313

Susan Glover Montgomery, AL Central 334-551-2196 334-202-9490

Sarah Kline Spartanburg, SC Eastern 803-462-2912 803-351-8482

Elyse Lopez Cheyenne, WY Mountain 307-679-2115

Shelley Oelkers LaCrosse, KS Central 785-213-8469

Adriana Roman-Muniz Springfield, IL Central 217-547-6032

Tracey Robinson Fort Collins, CO Mountain 701-426-7391

Sara Selensky Rugby, ND Central 701-400-0205

Dave Taillon Reno, NV Pacific 916-203-3230 916-854-3934

Bridget Urrutia Harrisburg, PA Eastern 717-651-3786

VSPS Training Network Coordinator

Kristen Higgins

kristen.m.higgins@usda.gov

Martha Elmore

Lincoln, NE

Georgie Berry

Oroville, WA

Dave Taillon

Reno, NV Adriana Roman-Muniz

Springfield, IL Tracey Robinson

Fort Collins, CO

Susan Glover

Montgomery, AL

Anthony Dank

Duluth, MN

Sarah Kline

Spartanburg, SC

Sara Selensky

Rugby, ND

Shelley Oelkers

LaCrosse, KS

Elyse Lopez

Cheyenne, WY

Bridget Urrutia

Harrisburg, PA