alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 8 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner. No. 97-731

ORDER Filed September 8, 1997
Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Michael C. Washington has filed for a wr it in the nature of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. He also seeks leave of this court to proceed with his petition without the prep ayment of fees, and has submitted the necessary forms and declarations. Be cause we conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents petitioner from procee ding in forma pauperis in this proceeding, we deny petitioner leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. “Section 1915(g) generally prevents a prisoner fromproceeding in forma pauperis in civil actions if three or more of his p rior suits have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for failure to state a c laim.” Green v. Nottingham , 90 F.3d 415, 418 (10th Cir. 1996). As in Green , petitioner here has filed three or-2-

more such actions. See Washington v. Loving , No. 96-6192, 1997 WL 111259, at **2 (10th Cir. March 13, 1997) (affirming the distr ict court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint as “legally meritless and fa ctually baseless”); Washington v. Loving , No 94-6466, 1995 WL 421131, at **1 (10th Cir. Jul y 18, 1995) (commenting that petitioner had filed four frivolou s actions in the Western District of Oklahoma and sixteen frivolous actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma). Petitioner’s history satisfies the requ irements of § 1915(g). In Greenthis court concluded that petitions for mandamus q ualify as “civil actions” under § 1915(g). See 90 F.3d at 418. Accordingly, petitioner cannot fi le this petition without prepayment of costs or fees. Further, we direct the clerk of this court not to accept from petitioner any future filings of extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters or appeals of judgment in civil actions or proceedings unless he first pays the applicable filing fees, except in those instances that petitioner’s filings claim that he is under imminent danger of s erious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis i s denied. Petitioner may resubmit his petition by paying the required filing fee, see 10th Cir. R. 21.1.

Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
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 Netopia, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles Constanti, as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



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



By:

/s/ Charles ConstantiCharles ConstantiVice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)Date: February 9, 2005
* 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 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41532

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN HURTADO-DAMIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-441-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Esteban Hurtado-Damian appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Hurtado-Damian contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Hurtado-Damian maintains that he
No. 02-41532

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Hurtado-Damian acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00568-CV

Selena PESQUEDA, Et al.,

Appellants

v.

UTILITY LINES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, et al.,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-05581

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellants have

failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that 

appellants are not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We, therefore, ORDER appellants to provide written proof to this court by October 28, 

2016 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the 

clerk’s fee; or (2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellants

fail to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if 

appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02995

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
### From: Nall, Ryan [ mailto:Ryan.Nall@sapagroup.com ]

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:57 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Subject: RE: Sapa Monett 2012 Stack Test

- Part 1 of 3

Sorry for the slow reply. Looks like it was used 2 out of the 3 runs. Amlox 72 was used the other.

RYAN M. NALL, CSP

EHS MANAGER

Sapa Group

808 County Rd., Monett, MO 65708

Telephone 417

- 354

- 8237

E

- mail ryan.nall@sapagroup.com

www.sapagroup.com

Follow Sapa on social media

Sapa is the world leader in aluminium solutions. We are shaping a lighter future through a global

reach and local presence within extrusions, building systems, and precision tubing. We have

23,500 employees in mor e than 40 countries, and our headquarters are located in Oslo, Norway.

From: Boyd, Rochelle [ mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov ]

Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:26 AM

To: Nall, Ryan

Subject: RE: Sapa Monett 2012 Stack Test

- Part 1 of 3



### Was the Metallpur 315 flux used during the entire test for Holding Furnace EU0030 for

this test also?

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

From: Nall, Ryan [ mailto:Ryan.Nall@sapagroup.com ]

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:24 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Subject: Sapa Monett 2012 Stack Test

- Part 1 of 3

See attached.

### RYAN M. NALL, CSP

EHS MANAGER

Sapa Group

808 County Rd., Monett, MO 65708

Telephone 417

- 354

- 8237

E

- mail ryan.nall@sapagroup.com

www.sapagroup.com

Follow Sapa on social media

Sapa is the world leader in aluminium solutions. We are shaping a lighter future thro ugh a global

reach and local presence within extrusions, building systems, and precision tubing. We have

23,500 employees in more than 40 countries, and our headquarters are located in Oslo, Norway.
EX-4.1






Exhibit 4.1


2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



Incorporated by reference to Exhibit F to Veramark Technologies, Inc. Proxy Statement dated April
16, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008, Commission File No.
0-13898).




 - 7 -
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Written
      Statement of Chief Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Jeffersonville Bancorp (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      hereby certifies to his knowledge on the date hereof, that:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





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 required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Jeffersonville Bancorp and will be retained
      by Jeffersonville Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      commission or its staff upon request.


**/s/
                Raymond Walter**Raymond
                WalterMarch
                15, 2007
            *President
                and Chief Executive
                Officer*
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1603

_____________________________

JAMES WELCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA; JULIE L.

JONES, Secretary, Department of 

Corrections,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

February 20, 2018

B.L. THOMAS, C.J.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order transferring his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus to the sentencing court, because 

the petition challenges Appellant’s judgment and/or sentence. 

Because Appellant’s petition is a time-barred collateral attack on 

his sentence, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with 

instructions to dismiss. 

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, all of Appellant’s 

claims for relief were based on violations of his constitutional due 

process rights, and he summarized his petition by stating he was 

“denied his 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights to due process 
2

of law and hearing before an impartial jury or fact finder.” Such 

claims must be made by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850. 

“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to 

obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available by 

motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.” Baker v. 

State, 878 So. 3d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Dismissal of a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus, rather than transfer, is appropriate 

when the petitioner seeks “the kind of collateral postconviction 

relief available through a motion filed in the sentencing court, 

and which (1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for 

postconviction relief under rule 3.850 . . . .” Zuluaga v. State, Fla. 

Dep’t of Corr., 32 So. 3d 674, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting 

Baker, 878 So. 2d at 1246). Appellant’s sentence became final on 

December 9, 2010, and he filed his petition on March 7, 2017, 

long after the two-year window under rule 3.850 had closed. We 

therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand with 

instructions to dismiss Appellant’s petition. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

James Welch, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Barbara Debelius Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General 

Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-02-421-CV

					NO. 2-02-422-CV

IN THE MATTER OF L.B. 	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On February 11, 2003 and March 5, 2003, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk and the court reporter responsible for preparing the records in this appeal informed the court that payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the records as required by TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), 35.3(b)(3).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the records and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the records, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 1, 2003
SERVE D FEBRUAR Y 16,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N • OFFIC E O FHEARING S OrP I O FTBANSPORM

N WASHINGTON , D.C . ^ ^ ' " I N TH E MATTE RO F REDO X TECH , LLC , Respondent , FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09AL001 3 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-097 8 ADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDGE' S ORDE R RESCHEDULIN GHEARIN G Th e Complainan t

ha s submitte damotio n requestin g apostponemen t o f th e date o f

th e hearing . I n support

o f th e request , counse l say s tha t h e ha s aconflic t i n hi s schedul e becaus e th e Marc h11 , 201 0 dat e for th e hearin g i n thi s cas e i s th e sam e a s th e dat e fo r ahearin g before th e EEO C in whic hh e i s t o represen t

hi s agency . Th e motio n paper s als o sa y that Respondent' s representativ e doe s no t

oppos e th e relie f

sought . Respondent' s representativ e ha s informe dm e tha t h e woul dprefe r

t o hav e th e hearin g hel ddurin g th e wee k o f Marc h15 , 2010 . Regrettably , m y calenda r doe s no t permi t me t o accommodat e that request , a s I hav e hearing s i n tw o othe r

case s schedule dfor

hearin g tha t

week . I n consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , an dfo

r goo dcaus e shown , th e dat e o f th e hearin g i s postpone dt o Marc h25 , 2010 , Th e hearin g wil l b e hel di n Raleigh , NorthCarolina , Th e deadlin e fo r th e exchang e o f

witnes s list s an d propose dexhibit s i s als o postponed . Th e ne w deadlin e fo r thos e exchange s 0

### i s March11 , 2010 .

I T I S S O ORDERED .

Administrativ e la w Judg e
<PAGE>

                    D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended June 30, 2002 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
William Ruhl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. " 1350, as adopted pursuant to " 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. " 78m(a) 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.


   /s/ G. William Ruhl
--------------------------------
Name: G. William Ruhl
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  March 31, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



                                       50
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,852,186
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 15,950,261
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      21,959,122
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        22,120,512
<LOANS>                                     88,519,424
<ALLOWANCE>                                    973,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,671,415
<DEPOSITS>                                 136,756,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,596,498
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            733,503
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,189,565
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,395,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,584,612
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,919,669
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,392,362
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,312,031
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,996,312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,996,312
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,315,719
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  590,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,268,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                757,097
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     757,097
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   630,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.44
<LOANS-NON>                                    657,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   146,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                83,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               738,353
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  400,308
<RECOVERIES>                                    45,946
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              973,991
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           973,991
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-134-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes In 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed in 
Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of January 1, 2001.
    Texas Gas states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to Section 22 of the General Terms and Conditions of Texas 
Gas's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, to reflect the 2001 
General RD&D Funding Units authorized in the Order Approving Settlement 
issued by the Commission on April 29, 1998, in Docket No. RP97-149-003, 
et al., at 83 FERC para. 61,093.
    Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31413 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M