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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7596

CHARLES EDWARD EBRON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. KELLER, Hampton Police Officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-94-767)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward Ebron, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Brody Rashkind,

FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on August 29, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on October 4, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph W. Kaufmann, 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; and

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



|                       |  |                         |  | 
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kaufmann  |  | 
|                       |  | Joseph W. Kaufmann      |  | 
|                       |  | Chief 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 Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
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 Partnership and Star Gas
Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |  |  |                                        |  |                                      
|----------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.               
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY              
|            |  | 
|            |  |  |  | By: KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)
|            |  |  | 
|May 4, 2011 |  |  |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN                
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Finance Company
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 Kingdom Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene
Jackson, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (principal executive
officer and principal financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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 has
been provided to Kingdom Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Kingdom
Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


May 13, 2004                        /s/ Gene Jackson
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Gene Jackson
                                    President, Secretary, Treasurer
                                    and Director (principal executive
                                    officer and principal financial
                                    officer)
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph W. Kaufmann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kensey Nash
Corporation;

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 its 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 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: February 17, 2004           /s/ Joseph W. Kaufmann
                                  --------------------------------
                                  Joseph W. Kaufmann
                                  Chief Executive Officer



                                       38
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerlando Peter Triscari, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 46]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record does not support the argument of defendant that his plea of guilty was coerced by the need to seek medical treatment. When defendant indicated that he felt forced into taking a plea by his need for medical treatment, Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings and stated that it would not accept a plea on that basis. Defendant was allowed to confer with his attorney, and only then admitted to the factual allegations underlying the charges. The record supports the conclusion that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary *(see, People v Creech,*183 AD2d 1079, 1080; *People v Rodriguez,*182 AD2d 497, *lv denied*79 NY2d 1053; *cf., People v Greeman,*194 AD2d 397, 398, *lv denied*82 NY2d 719). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J. — Attempted Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J. Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Levy Gerzberg, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation;

 

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

 

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

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport information; and

 

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Dated:  May 10, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Levy  Gerzberg       |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Levy  Gerzberg           |
|   | President  and           |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
# **Exhibit 23.1**

| **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|

The firm of Armando C. Ibarra, Certified Public Accountants, APC consents to the inclusion of our report of November 28, 2005 (amended), on the audited consolidated financial statements of Viper Networks, Inc. and Subsidiariesas of December 31, 2004, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ Armando C. Ibarra             ARMANDO C. IBARRA, CPAChula Vista, Ca. 91910November 28, 2005
NUMBER 13-09-00642-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

RAUL J. STEVENS, APPELLANT,

v.

GILBERTO LUCIO AND ESTELA LUCIO, APPELLEES.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 103rd District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Raul J. Stevens, appealed a judgment entered by the 103rd District 

Court of Cameron County, Texas. On December 2, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.5. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. The Clerk directed appellant to file an 

amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of 
2

that notice. On June 15, 2010, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been 

corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not 

cured within ten days. To date, the defect has not been corrected.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s failure to 

correct this defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 

42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed 

5th day of August, 2010.
No. 75-1874.

#### Jones, Secretary, Department of Correction of North Carolina, et al. *v.*North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.

Appeal from D. C. E. D. N. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe amendment to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Schneider, Senior VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.
|                        |   |                               |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Dated:  April 19, 2007 |   | /s/ Karl Schneider                 |   |   |   |
|                        |   | Karl Schneider                     |   |   |
|                        |   | Senior Vice President, Finance and |   |   |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer            |   |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 8.1****CLAXSON INTERACTIVE GROUP INC.****List of Significant Subsidiaries**1. CTG Inversora S.A., incorporated under the laws of Argentina. 2. Claxson Chile S.A., incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Chile 3. Claxson USA II Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida 4. Carson International Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. 5. El Sitio, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands 6. Playboy TV Latin America, LLC, incorporated under the laws of the State of California. 7. Lifford International Co. Ltd, incorporated under the laws of the BritishVirgin Islands.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus HENRY FREDERICK KRIZANOVIC, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-04-124) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: March 1, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Frederick Krizanovic pled guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues: whether (1) the district court erred by failing to grant a downward departure for diminished capacity under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (2004), p.s., and, (2) the sentence was reasonable under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, a district court’s failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable unless a district court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Matthews , 209 F.3d 338, 352 (4th Cir. 2000). Here there is no indication in the record that the district court misunderstood its authority. Second, we find that Krizanovic’s forty-six month sentence, imposed at the bottom of his properly calculated Guideline range, and after the court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), was reasonable. See United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005); see alsoUnited States v. Shannon , 414 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that a “sentence imposed . . . consistent with the now-advisory guidelines . . . is generally indicative of reasonableness.”).- 3 - We have ex amined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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
#### In re Ralph M. FULGHUM d/b/a The Stripping Center, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. LR 81-633.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Arkansas, W. D.

April 19, 1982.

Faber Jenkins, Little Rock, Ark., for debtor.

ORDER CONFIRMING PLAN OF ARRANGEMENT UNDER CHAPTER 13 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE ON CONDITION THAT PLAN IS EXTENDED TO MAXIMUM FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND PAYMENT INTO PLAN FOR LAST TWO YEARS WILL GO TO PAY UNSECURED CREDITORS

DENNIS J. STEWART, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtors propose a three-year plan of arrangement under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, under which they propose to pay $230.00 monthly into the plan and to return certain property to secured creditors, all to repay some $14,773.12 in secured indebtedness. No payment is proposed to be made on account of $50,643.07 in unsecured debt.

Some of the unsecured creditors have accordingly objected to confirmation of the plan of arrangement on the ground that, in proposing no payment at all to unsecured creditors, the plan is not proposed in good faith under the rule of *In re Terry,*630 F.2d 634 (8th Cir. 1980), which *527holds that some meaningful payment to creditors must be proposed. Generally, the meaning of “good faith,” as it is made a prerequisite to confirmation is an issue resolvable on a case-by-case basis. See *Matter of Curtis,*2 B.R. 43 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo. 1979). Under the interpretation employed by that ease, “good faith” is essentially the debtors’ payment of the outstanding debt according to his ability. In this case, the objecting creditors do not contend that they would receive any more than nothing if straight liquidation under chapter 7 ensued. Rather, their objection is that they are not being paid according to the debtors’ ability to pay.

The monthly budget which has been submitted shows that, in paying $230.00 per month into the plan, the debtors propose to pay all their income and expenses will allow. In this case, however, an important and compelling factor to be considered is that the unsecured debt comprises by far the greatest amount of debt owed by the debtors. Thus, even if it may be generally true that no payment need to be proposed to the unsecured creditors, in this case, when the unsecured debt is more than triple the sum of the secured debt proposed to be paid, “good faith” requires that significant payments be made to unsecured creditors. This can only be done according to the debtors’ ability to pay. If the plan, accordingly, is extended to the maximum 60-month plan allowable by § 1322 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the $230.00 payable monthly then disbursed *pro rata*to the unsecured creditors, a payment to unsecured creditors in an approvable amount will be proposed. It is therefore

ORDERED that the debtors’ plan of arrangement under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code be, and it is hereby, confirmed on condition that it is modified so as to extend it to a 60-month plan, with the monies paid into the plan during its last 24 months to be distributed *pro rata*to the unsecured creditors.