alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0299n.06

Filed: May 28, 2008

No. 06-2203

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

OMAR SITTO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BLAINE C. LAFLER,

Respondent-Appellee.

 /

On appeal from the United States

District Court for the Eastern District

of Michigan

BEFORE: RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges. 

RYAN, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Omar Sitto, was convicted in a Michigan

court of a drug conspiracy offense. His state court efforts to have his conviction set aside

were not successful. He then sought federal habeas relief in the district court under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, again without success. He now appeals the district court’s judgment,

arguing that the Michigan state courts deprived him of his right to due process by refusing

to conduct an evidentiary hearing or grant a new trial based on his claim of newly

discovered evidence; that he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct denied

him a fair trial. We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

I.

The district court correctly concluded that the Michigan courts did not violate Sitto’s

federal due process right by refusing to grant a hearing on his claim that newly discovered
(No. 06-2203) - 2 -

evidence showed that a key witness perjured himself at trial; that Sitto has not shown that

he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct did not deny him a fair trial. 

In a comprehensive and well-written opinion, the district court judge, the Honorable

David M. Lawson, set forth in detail the reasons why Sitto’s claims are without merit. We

agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusion and we add only that we continue

to adhere to the rule that a free-standing innocence claim is not cognizable for habeas

review. Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2007). 

II.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in its

opinion denying Sitto’s habeas petition. See Sitto v. Bock, No. 00-10267-BC, 2006 WL

2559765 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2006).
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

                        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 My Quote Zone, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Eduard Tabara, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Eduard Tabara
--------------------------
    Eduard Tabara
    President


Date  January 12, 2006
      -----------------


<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

d1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

152070

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152070

COA: 322808

Washtenaw CC: 14-000272-AR

JOSHUA MATTHEW PACE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2268 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Washington’s Birthday 

be observed on February 22, rather than the third Monday in February, 

of each year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2011 

Mr. WOLF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Washington’s Birthday be observed on February 22, rather 

than the third Monday in February, of each year. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHANGE IN DATE FOR OBSERVANCE OF WASH4 INGTON’S BIRTHDAY. 

5 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking the item relating to Washington’s 

7 Birthday and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘Washington’s Birthday, February 22.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, Terry McConnaughey, certify that:  1. I, and the other certifying officer, have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Silver Butte Co., Inc.  2. Based on our 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 our 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. I, and the other certifying officer, 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) [Not required]. c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion 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 d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  5. We have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrants board of directors: 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; and b) 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: April 9, 2007 By:    _/s/ Terry McConnaughey  Terry McConnaughey, President and Director
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 75 8- CV Gordon W. BOBB ITT , Appellant
v . SCENIC HILL S COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC . a nd Rob e rt Sta tze r, Pr e sid e nt, Appellee s Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 1, Guada lupe County , Texas Trial Court No. 2009-CV-0341 Honora ble L inda Z . J ones, Judge Pre siding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 13, 2010 DI SMI SSED Ap pe lla nt f ile d a mot ion to dis miss th is app eal wi th e a c h p a rt y be a ri ng its ow n c os ts. Howeve r, t h e m o t i o n does not contain a cer tificate of confe renc e or a

ny attachme nt refle cting an ag ree ment of the pa

rties re g ard i n g t h e as s es sment of costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d) ( absent
a g re e me nt o f p a rt ie s, c os ts a re ta xed again st app e lla

nt) . A c c or din g ly , w e g ra nt t he mot ion

to04
- 09
- 00 75 8- CV

- 2- dismiss , but or der all costs of the appea l assessed a g ainst appellant. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a) (1), (d).

PER CU RI AM
1

Michael B. Mukasey, now Attorney General of the United States, is substituted

as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1034

___________

Abraham Sowe, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Bureau of Immigration

* and Customs Enforcement.

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 Attorney *

General of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 5, 2008

Filed: June 11, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Abraham Sowe, a native of Gambia and a citizen of Sweden, petitions for

review of an order of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

ordering him removed. We lack jurisdiction to review Sowe’s petition because he was

admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and, as a

condition of entry under the VWP, he waived his right to contest removal on any

ground other than an application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)-(b); Lacey v.
-2-

Gonzales, 499 F.3d 514, 518 (6th Cir. 2007); Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 1133

(9th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

______________________________
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 207 

To clarify that schools and local educational agencies participating in the 

school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act are authorized to donate excess food to local food banks 

or charitable organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2011 

Mr. PETRI (for himself, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To clarify that schools and local educational agencies participating in the school lunch program under the Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act are authorized 

to donate excess food to local food banks or charitable 

organizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘School Food Recovery 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 207 IH

1 SEC. 2. FOOD DONATION PROGRAM. 

2 Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School 

3 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(l) FOOD DONATION PROGRAM.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each school and local edu7 cational agency participating in the school lunch 

8 program under this Act may donate any food not 

9 consumed under such program to eligible local food 

10 banks or charitable organizations. 

11 ‘‘(2) GUIDANCE.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 

13 days after the date of the enactment of this 

14 subsection, the Secretary shall develop and pub15 lish guidance to schools and local educational 

16 agencies participating in the school lunch pro17 gram under this Act to assist such schools and 

18 local educational agencies in donating food 

19 under this subsection. 

20 ‘‘(B) UPDATES.—The Secretary shall up21 date such guidance as necessary. 

22 ‘‘(3) LIABILITY.—Any school or local edu23 cational agency making donations pursuant to this 

24 subsection shall be exempt from civil and criminal li25 ability to the extent provided under the Bill EmerVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:56 Jan 12, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H207.IH H207

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 207 IH

1 son Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 

2 1791). 

3 ‘‘(4) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

4 ‘eligible local food banks or charitable organizations’ 

5 means any food bank or charitable organization 

6 which is exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

8 501(c)(3)).’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
1 Robyn L. Weber, Esq.

Weber Law Firm 2 221 5th Avenue Helena, MT 59601 3 Tel. (406) 449-4433 Robyn®weberlawhelena.com 

### 4 Attorney for Petitioner/Appellee KATIE MARIE THORNTON 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IN RE THE PARENTING PLAN FOR: 12 A.J.B., A Minor Child, 13 KATIE MARIE THORNTON, 14 Petitioner/Appellee, ORDER CRANTING SECOND 15 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

## Ty)EF 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

# FILED ytX Pi 20
faCivien Greenwood Olaf% of Suprerne COUrt State Of Montana
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

24 25 GREGORY STEVEN BALLARD,

Rcspondent/Appellant. Cause No. DA 21-0168

Upon motion ofthePetitioner/Appellee,KATIE MARIE THORNTON,byand throughher I counsel of record, Robyn L. Weber, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioncr/Appellee IS I GRANTED an additional 8 days to prcpare and file the Response Brief, up to and including October 8, 2021. SO ORDERED this

c: Robyn Weber, Esq. 

### Brian Miller, Esq. dayof September, 2021. 09/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0168
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 December 2005

in Case C-33/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Telecommunications - Directive 97/33/EC - Article 7(5) - Obligation to verify the compliance of cost accounting systems by a competent independent body and to publish a statement of compliance - Directive 98/10/EC - Article 18(1) and (2) - Failure to apply correctly the measures adopted as regards verification of the compliance of the cost accounting system by the national regulatory authority and the annual publication of a statement of compliance - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Pre-litigation procedure - Rights of the defence - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Transitional provisions - Member States to refrain, during the period laid down for transposition of a directive, from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive - Reference interconnection offers)

(2006/C 36/14)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-33/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils and M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: M. Thill and S. Schreiner, assisted by A. Verheyden and F. Bimont, avocats,) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 January 2004 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka,, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 December 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 71 of 23.03.2004.

----
U.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


## MAY 0 4 2015

Mr. Rafael Gustavo Fassina Marques Airworthiness Office Embraer S.A. Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2.170 12227-901

- S.J. dos Campos

- SP Brasil
Dear Mr. Marques: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W

. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter no. GCF-0335/2015 , dated March 24, 2015 , on behalf ofEmbraer S.A. , requesting an amendment to exemption no. 10757
. That exemption provided relieffrom § 25.809(a) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations regarding overwing emergency-exit requirements on Embraer Model EMB-550 airplanes. Your request for amendment, if granted, would include in the exemption the derivative Model EMB-545 airplane. Your petition has been added to public docket no . FAA-2012-0302 and is being processed. We will contact you ifwe need additional information. We will advise you ofour final decision on your petition as soon as possible
. lf you have questions in the meantime, you may call Jayson Claar at (425) 227-2194 , e-mail jayson.claar@ faa
.gov. Sincerely,

Mark Forseth Standardization Branch Transpoti Airplane Directorate Federal Aviation Administration
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 2      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24730]



[[Page 58095]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee G--Education.
    Date: October 11-13, 2000.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: Harvey P. Stein, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 
Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8036, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301/496-7841.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 19, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-24730 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN J. KANARD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00147

- JAG

- 1 )

Submitted : September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John J. Kanard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John J. Kanard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a se ntence
reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kanard , No. 3:04

- cr - 0 0147

- JAG

- 1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2021). 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.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We have issued our report dated March 29, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Fortress International Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Fortress International Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-142906, effective May 14, 2007 and File No. 333-167688, effective June 22, 2010), and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-123504, and File No. 333-154174, effective October 10, 2008).




/s/ Grant Thornton LLPBaltimore, MarylandMarch 29, 2011