alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30201

Summary Calendar

 

LEONARD HEBRARD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ED C. DAY, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1647-K

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

August 21, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leonard Hebrard (Hebrard), Louisiana prisoner #106664,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hebrard argues that the

district court erred in calculating the one-year limitations

period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) because it did not take into

account the fact that Louisiana prisoners have three years to

seek postconviction relief under La. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 930.8. 

Hebrard has not shown that the district court erred in
No. 00-30201

-2-

dismissing his § 2254 petition as time-barred. Because his

conviction was final before the effective date of the AEDPA, he

had until April 24, 1997, to file his federal habeas petition. 

Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1998). His

§ 2254 petition was not filed until May 3, 1999. Hebrard's state

habeas application did not toll the limitations period because it

was not filed until January or April of 1998, after the

expiration of the limitations period. § 2244(d)(2). Hebrard

does not argue that a state impediment prevented him from timely

filing a § 2254 petition. § 2244(d)(1)(B). Further, Hebrard

cites no authority to support his argument that because the state

application was timely filed within the three-year state

limitations period, it should toll the one-year federal

limitations period. 

Hebrard also provides no support for his argument that

Congress did not intend for the one-year statute of limitations

to apply when a state postconviction application for relief has

been properly filed or that Congress intended the limitations

period to run only after state remedies have been exhausted. We

noted in Flanagan, 154 F.3d at 199 n.1, that the limitations

period could run before the filing of a request for habeas relief

in the state courts.

Finally, we note that, liberally construed, Hebrard appears

to argue that the limitations period should not be applied to bar

his § 2254 petition because it interferes with or impermissibly

affects the state’s limitations period for the filing of state

habeas applications. Hebrard, without explanation, cites our
No. 00-30201

-3-

decision in Villegas v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 467, 469-73 (5th Cir.

1999), to support his argument. In Villegas, we did note the

importance of allowing state courts to first address habeas

claims. We did not indicate, however, that the state’s

limitations period should control the federal limitations period. 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of

Hebrard's habeas petition is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certificate of Principal Financial Officer

pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET
Networks) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), I, George E. Mazzotta, Chief Financial Officer of CNET Networks, certify pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 28, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ GEORGE E. MAZZOTTA 
|George E. Mazzotta     
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and
will be retained by CNET Networks. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Braintech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Owen L.J. Jones the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Owen L.J. Jones		Owen L.J. Jones
Principal Executive Officer

March 29, 2004
• 

1qR0 APPRO,VED 'FOR' 

RELEASE 

;". 

4 

;11. 

DEPARTMENT CiP_THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

O* VICE torjriie accrtirrimi. 

t 1t 490 1.1 

0.41101111A TILIS4CtSTARY OP.DF,Mtrig F. 

• 

.,,A,ty esemorentimm to you of 4une 28, 19(, With Lattatheientio.., . 

presafiped a tonswary eitscription.cf tholionnod Orbiting ). 

i itboratory Progrev es it had then evolved from the iiir'Forte 

- 

., - 

studies. Thv Memorandum cevered, at tome length, the important Ij I . 

'.tontribUtione this pro, ramren make to our Netional security, , , -,:, 

Has impertant reasons for undorteking the program, and the , , 

01:10ific rtiOtIons'for undertaking it:Id-the Manner proptmed - 

, Alta umworatultiiu, 0.oretreyod my sego est for authotity to oriteak:,1 

khase IVof the program. 

Trap4mittod h01741Withoat yourrequeat, is a firctlucte. 

memorins, iwith attiletoenta iwhich 'salines tIu manner 'in v.,'' 

whicb-rwould uwortgo the program vIthin the Ale POrceilirOminti' 

a,recovmended policy for aecority and poblic10formatiOniidescribes the contracter Structure vhich I recommend for 

implementing the program; and epecifidally_t'ilcoWaienddjhe 

cOntractotto to be oel4ced4c, A proposed public relicase On nal* 

ho Oclection.oi the conttt4tortuls,10ainded• :A'' .''''' 

With this'tranmodttali 1 hOliev*X 1 11040 giitan you t' 

complete acCount'of tPle Progkaill.t0A)0 400m0i0bod, 44:010 

masons as I iolvthemlor:undortaking #itnd,44,01,1060nopx., in 

Vlach we propose to OtWartAkaAl. .:,1410t4 *BO you*i_Aakiervia, 

to :initiate tbo ptogram::"'- ' t , 

,Y 

3. 

Page',1 of 1 pag6 

'E0t,E37536.05',, 

.AttaChmontt 

• 

bokiAd 

• HANLE ViA Bagful, 

Mid SYSTEM 

! . •
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6288

In Re: ANTHONY STEVEN AUSTIN, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Steven Austin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Anthony Steven Austin petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing a North Carolina state court to act on his Motion for Appropriate Relief. In the alternative, he asks us to vacate several state misdemeanor convictions. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state courts. See Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Nor do we have jurisdiction to review state court orders. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). We conclude that Austin has not established his clear right to the relief sought; nor can we compel state courts and officials through a writ of mandamus. Therefore, although we grant Austin leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. PETITION DENIED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2531

In re: KEVIN WAYNE MCDANIELS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Wayne McDaniels, Petitoner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Wayne McDaniels petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the South Carolina state court to 

dismiss criminal charges against him. We conclude that

McDaniels is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Moreover, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant 

mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior 

Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), 

and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court 

orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462, 482 (1983).

The relief sought by McDaniels is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

also deny McDaniels’ motion for bail or release pending appeal 

as well as his motion to amend exhibits. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 4.1

               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NUMBER                                                                  SHARES

                            REAL VALUE ESTATES, INC.

                    Total Authorized Issue 150,000,000 Shares

100,000,000 Shares $.001 Par Value             50,000,000 Shares $.001 Par Value
          Common Stock                                  Preferred Stock


                                    SPECIMAN

This is to certify that ________________________________ is the owner of

________________________________________________________________________________
            Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of Common Stock of

                            REAL VALUE ESTATES, INC.

     transferrable only on the books of the corporation by the holder thereof in
person or by a duly  authorized  Attorney  upon  surrender  of this  certificate
properly endorsed.

     Witness  the  seal  of the  Corporation  and  the  signatures  of its  duly
authorized officers.

Dated:


------------------------------                    ------------------------------
Secretary                                                      President
                                      Seal
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1327 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 

analogues. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to 

controlled substance analogues. 

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 ‘‘Synthetic Abuse and 

5 Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2015’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SALTS Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES. 

8 Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 813) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1327 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A controlled’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A controlled’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) DETERMINATION.—In determining whether a 

5 controlled substance analogue was intended for human 

6 consumption under subsection (a), evidence related to the 

7 following factors may be considered, along with all other 

8 relevant evidence: 

9 ‘‘(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling 

10 of the substance. 

11 ‘‘(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the 

12 substance for the marketed, advertised, or labeled 

13 purpose. 

14 ‘‘(3) The difference between the price at which 

15 the substance is sold and the price at which the sub16 stance it is purported to be or advertised as is nor17 mally sold. 

18 ‘‘(4) The diversion of the substance from legiti19 mate channels and the clandestine importation, man20 ufacture, or distribution of the substance. 

21 ‘‘(5) Whether the defendant knew or should 

22 have known the substance was intended to be con23 sumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any 

24 other immediate means. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1327 IS

1 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—For purposes of this section, the 

2 existence of evidence that a substance was not marketed, 

3 advertised, or labeled for human consumption shall not 

4 preclude the Government from establishing, based on all 

5 the evidence, that the substance was intended for human 

6 consumption.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7206** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
ADR IA N CHAVEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00342

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Adr ia n Chavez, Appellant Pro Se. Dena Janae King, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Adrian Chavez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Chavez , No. 5 : 11

- cr 00 342

- F

- 1 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# C_2005132EN.01000303.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 April 2005

in Case C-61/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - EAEC Treaty - Scope - Military installations - Health and safety - Decommissioning of a nuclear reactor - Disposal of radioactive waste)

(2005/C 132/06)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-61/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström and X. Lewis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond and C. Jackson and D. Wyatt, R. Plender and S. Tromans), supported by French Republic, (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 141 EA, brought on 14 February 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.

1

---
# C_2005082EN.01000201.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 27 January 2005

in Case C-15/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/439/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Priority to processing by regeneration)

(2005/C 82/03)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-15/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 January 2003 – Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Grunwald and M. Konstantinidis) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl, M. Hauer and E. Wolfslehner) supported by: Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji and by M. Demetriou) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where the technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where the technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                      MICROS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

Share and per share amounts shown for the three month period ending September
30, 1997 have been retroactively restated to reflect a two-for-one stock split,
effected in the form of a stock dividend, paid June 23, 1998:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                                                    September 30,
                                                                                                1998             1997
                                                                                                ----             ----
           <S>                                                                                 <C>              <C>
           Weighted-average number of common shares                                             16,115           15,998
           Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options                                            933              492
                                                                                                   ---              ---
           Weighted-average number of common and common
             equivalent shares outstanding                                                      17,048           16,490
                                                                                                ------           ------
           Net income                                                                           $3,508           $3,015
                                                                                                ======           ======
           Basic net income per common share                                                     $0.22            $0.19
                                                                                                 =====            =====
           Diluted net income per common share                                                   $0.21            $0.18
                                                                                                 =====            =====
</TABLE>