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

JUl 162009 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

CARLTON B. CHATMON, 

Petitioner, 

v. Civil Action No. 09 1319 

UNITED STATES, 

Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Petitioner states that he is serving a term of 20 to 60 months' imprisonment imposed by 

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on January 25,2008. Pet. ~ 10. He alleges that he 

is unlawfully held in custody because the sentence imposed violates the Sentencing Reform Act 

of2000, id., which in relevant part requires that "[a] sentence ... shall be for a definite term." 

D.C. Code § 24-403.01(c). A challenge ofthis nature must be brought by motion in the Superior 

Court under D.C. Code § 23-11 O. In relevant part D.C. Code § 23-11 0 provides: 

[ An] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner 

who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this 

section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal. .. court if it 

appears ... that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it 

also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention. 

D.C. Code § 23-11O(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it 

is coextensive with habeas corpus." Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is 

settled that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless 

the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention'" Byrd v. 

1 

J 
, . 

Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay, 

794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). A prisoner's lack of success in 

his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion 

under D.C. Code § 23-110(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson 

v. Office a/the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277,280 (D.D.C. 1995). 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent 

with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date. 

Date: 1-\ 'it 0 1 

United States District Judge 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
<LEGEND>                          
                  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                  FROM  CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE   SHEETS,   CONDENSED
                  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND NOTES TO CONDENSED
                  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
                  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

                  RESTATED

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                           0000925054
<NAME>                                          SPECTRIAN CORP /DE/
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                               21,611
<SECURITIES>                                         60,285
<RECEIVABLES>                                        21,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                            382
<INVENTORY>                                          19,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    121,696
<PP&E>                                               63,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                       30,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      155,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                19,142
<BONDS>                                               5,368
<COMMON>                                            141,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (10,445)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        155,257
<SALES>                                              26,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     26,869
<CGS>                                                20,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        20,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     10,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (1,262)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,198)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,198)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT (23)-1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-72747) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan of The Banc Corporation and Commerce Bank of Alabama Incentive
Stock Compensation Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-70953) pertaining to The Banc
Corporation 401(k) Plan of our report dated March 3, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Banc Corporation and Subsidiaries
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                   Ernst & Young LLP


Birmingham, Alabama
March 21, 2000
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Timothy S. Nelson, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2007                        
|                                               
|/s/ Timothy S. Nelson                          
|Timothy S. Nelson                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JOSE RAMON ALMONTE, a/k/a Rana, a/k/a Esteban, a/k/a Jose B. Almonte, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00231) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, POYNER & SPRUILL LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jose Ramon Almonte pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Almonte to 121 months in prison, one month above the mandatory minimum sentence. Almonte timely appealed. Almonte’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting two claims. First, counsel questions whether Almonte’s trial counsel was ineffective for permitting him to enter a plea agreement under which he waived his right to appeal his sentence. Such claims generally must be raised in the district court in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Because the record does not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective, we decline to address this claim at this time. Almonte’s counsel also asserts that the mandatory minimum sentence required by 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2006) is unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court has recognized criticism of mandatory minimum sentences, it has not- 3 - found such sentences to be unconstitutional. Harris v. United States , 536 U.S. 545, 568-69 (2002). We have reviewed the issues raised in Almonte’s pro se supplemental briefs and find them to be meritless. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Almonte’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Almonte, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Almonte requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Almonte. 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.

AFFIRMED
* This opinion is being released initially in typescript form. IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2801

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v

.

SHAABAN HAFIZ AHMAD ALI SHAABAN,

Defendant-Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 05 CR 34-- John Daniel Tinder, Judge

.

APPELLANT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AND TO ALLOW MR. SHAABAN

TO PROCEED PRO SE

APRIL 24, 2008 *No. 06-2801 Page 2

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). Counsel for Shaaban Hafiz

Ahmad Ali Shaaban seeks leave to withdraw as appointed counsel for Mr.

Sha aban and asks that I permit Mr. Shaaban to proceed pro se. On January 28, 2008, I appointed new couns el for Mr. Shaaban after concluding that the record raised substantial doubt that his previously appointed counsel had fulfilled adequately his obligations under the

Seventh Cir

cuit Criminal Justice Act Plan, § V.3. U nited States v.
Shaaban

, 514 F.3d 697, 698-99 (7th Cir. 2008) (Ripple, J., in chambers). I

directed that new counsel file either a petition for rehearing or a motion

to withdraw on the ground that any such petition would be frivolous. I d

. at 699. On February 7, 2008, the court appointed Chief Federal Defender

Richard H. Parsons in Peoria, Illinois, and Sta ff Attorney Andrew J. McGowan of that office was assigned to the case.

Attorney McGowan now represents that he has identified a nonfrivolous issue that could be raised in the petition for rehearing, but he

further notes that there are possible negative consequences to raising that

issue. Mr. Shaaban has informed Mr. McGowan that he does not want this issue to be raised. Instead, Mr. Shaaban has prepared a pro se
petition for rehearing that raises the issues that Mr. Shaaban wants to be

raised. He attempted to file his pro se petition with the court, but the

Clerk pro

p erly rejected the pro se petition because Mr. Shaaban was represented by counsel. As a result of the disagreement regarding how

to proceed, counsel believes that there has been a br eakdown in the attorney-client relationship and moves to withdraw.

Counsel was dire

cted to file either a petition for rehearing or a

motion to withdraw because such a petition would be frivolous. S haaban

, 514 F.3d at 699. Attorney McGowan explains that he cannot representNo. 06-2801 Page 3

that a petition for rehearing would be frivolous because the issue he has

identified could have possible beneficial consequences, as well as possible
negative consequences. Mr. Shaaban, however, does not want this issue

to be raised. I must conclude that counsel has attempted to comply with

the court’s directive, but that Mr. Shaaban would prefer to file a pro se petition for rehearing raising the issues that he believes should be raised. Accordingly, I grant counsel’s mo tion to withdraw and permit Mr. Shaaban to file a pro se petition for rehearing within 30 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an adjustment to the threshold for Small 
Project subgrants made to State, Tribal, and local governments and 
private nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 
1, 2024.

DATES: This adjustment applies to major disasters and emergencies 
declared on or after October 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, as amended by the Sandy 
Recovery Improvement Act, Public Law 113-2, provides that FEMA will 
annually adjust the threshold for assistance provided under section 
422, Simplified Procedures, relating to the Public Assistance program, 
to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice that $1,062,900 is the threshold for any Small 
Project subgrant made to State, Tribal, and local governments or to the 
owner or operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility under 
section 422 of the Stafford Act for all major disasters or emergencies 
declared on or after October 1, 2024.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.5 percent for the 12-month period 
that ended in August 2024. This is based on information released by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor on September 
11, 2024.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster 
Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters).

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24698 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT (32)


                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in that Amendment No. 2 on
Form 10-K/A on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 2, 2005                                 /s/C. Stanley Bailey
                                          -------------------------------------
                                                    C. Stanley Bailey
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


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


<PAGE>

                              THE BANC CORPORATION

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of The Banc
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in that Amendment No. 2 on
Form 10-K/A to Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 2, 2005                                /s/ David R. Carter
                                         --------------------------------------
                                                    David R. Carter
                                                Chief Financial Officer


         This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
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 Quarterly Report of Ultimate Escapes, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
M. Tousignant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.




November
      23, 2009
              /s/ James M. TousignantJames
      M. TousignantPrincipal
      Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report of clickNsettle.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, Roy Israel, 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 Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated: November 11, 2004


/s/ Roy Israel
--------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       27
#### W. W. DANCEY *v.*THOMAS P. and CALLY S. BRASWELL.

Where a bond was given upon the 1st day of January 1863, for the hire of slaves for the year 1863 ; *Held,*that the plaintiff had a right to show to the jury the value of such slaves at that place and for that year, as a guide to them in making up a verdict.

*[Maxwell*v. *Hipp, ante*98, cited and approved.)

Covenant, tried before *Jones, J.,*at Eall Term 1869, of Edgecombe Court.

The plaintiff declared upon a bond in the usual form executed by the defendants “for the sum oí $179.00, it being for the hire of negroes,” &c. It was shown .by the plaintiff that nothing was said at the time of the hiring as to the currency in which the bond was to be paid; and he offered further to show the value of the slaves in that locality and for that year. This was excluded by the Court, and the plaintiff excepted.

Verdict for the plaintiff, in accordance with the instructions of the Court, “for $99.00, of which $72.22 is principal moneyEule, &c.; Judgment and Appeal by the plaintiff.

*Battle Sc Sons,*for the appellant.

*Phillips Sc Merrinnon, contra.*

Dick, J.

His Honor erred in not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence to show the value of the consideration of the contract declared on:—See *Maxwell*v. *Hipp, ante*98.

Let this be certified.

Per .Curiam. ' *Venire de novo.*