alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY LEE BILLS, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-17827D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02223-MCEGGH
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 27, 2014 ** Before: HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. *** 

# FILED
JUN 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.In the prior appeal of this case, Bills v. Clark , 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), we articulated a two-part test for deciding whether a mental impairment constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to equitably toll a prisoner’s time to file a petition for habeas corpus relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Under the first prong, Bills explains that a mental impairment is an “extraordinary circumstance” only when it is “so severe that either (a) petitioner was unable rationally or factually to pers onally understand the need to timely file, or (b) petitioner’s mental state rendered him unable to personally” prepare and file the habeas petition. Bills , 628 F.3d at 1099–1100. Bills ’s second prong requires the prisoner to show that, despite his diligence, “the mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing deadline unde r the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 1100. Stated another way, to be elig ible for equitable tolling, the otherwise diligent petitioner’s mental impairment must be the cause-in-fact of any delay. See Stancle v. Clay , 692 F.3d 948, 959 (9th Cir. 2012) cert. denied , --- U.S. --- , 133 S. Ct. 1465, 185 L. Ed. 2d 372 (2013). The district court concluded Mr. Bills has not met the second prong of Bills because he was not “diligent in attempting to comply with the filing requirements.” Bills , 628 F.3d at 1101. After our own careful review of the record, and considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bills’s untimelypetition, we agree with the district court that Mr. Bills has not exercised the requisite diligence to benefit from equitable tolling. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0001022916
<NAME> KEYSPAN ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,390,728
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    586,722
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         348,115
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       171,625
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,497,190
<COMMON>                                        16,922
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      555,535
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            396,586
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 969,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           745,091
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  64,211
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 718,845
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,497,190
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,478,187
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            57,229
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,278,388
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,335,617
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        142,570
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              16,748
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 159,318
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        44,585
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,733
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        292
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  114,441
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        73,478
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       37,976
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         228,039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.28
        

</TABLE>
8072

#### *EX PARTE*INMAN, *IN RE*BUIST v. SULLIVAN.

Insanity — Mortgages.—The overwhelming- weight of evidence is to the effect that the mortgagor was sane when he executed the mortgage and when the summons and complaint in foreclosure were served on him.

Before GaG£, J., Greenville, April, 1911.

Affirmed.

Petition by E. Inman, guardian *ad litem*of Newton Sullivan *in re*G. A. Buist, against Newton Sullivan, J. M. Cox and H. K. Townes. Petitioner appeals.

*Messrs. H. H. Harris*and *H. C. Miller,*for appellant,

cite: *Insanity once shown is presumed to continue until contrary is proved:*16 Ency. 604; 62 Miss. 440.

*280
      *Messrs. Townes & Martin,*contra,

cite: *Generally as-conclusive of this case:*71 S. C. 331.

December *29,*1911.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The plaintiff, C. A. Buist, obtained by default a judgment of foreclosure on certain mortgages executed by Newton Sullivan, The mortgaged land was sbld under the judgment in November, 1910, and purchased by H. K. Townes, who' afterwards conveyed to R. D. Dawkins. In February, 1910, the defendant, Newton Sullivan, by E. Inman, as guardian *ad litem,*filed his petition in the foreclosure case, alleging that in the year 1900 Newton Sullivan was adjudged insane by the probate court of Greenville county and committed to the lunatic asylum, and has ever since continued insane, though he was released from the asylum on probation after two years’ confinement, that he was mentally incapable of executing the mortgages referred to in the complaint for foreclosure, that the summons and complaint were served on him, but no guardian *ad litem*was appointed tO' represent him in the suit for foreclosure. Under these allegations an injunction was asked restraining Townes and Dawkins from interfering with •Newton Sullivan’s possession • of the land. Judge Gage made a temporary restraining order in which he required Townes and Dawkins to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. After hearing the return, Judge Gage refused to grant the injunction, revoked the restraining order, and ordered the sheriff to put Townes in possession as the purchaser at the foreclosure sale.

There can be no doubt of the correctness of the order. The only evidence of insanity was the committal of the petitioner to the asylum, and the statement of his wife’s opinion unsupported by a single fact, expressed in her petition for the appointment, of a committee for him. On the *281other side, there were before Judge Gage the fact that Sullivan had been released from the asylum, and the affidavits of a number of apparently disinterested persons that he conducted his business as a sane man, and had numerous transactions covering the period in which the mortgages were executed by Sullivan and the summons and complaint served upon him. The overwhelming weight of the evidence being to the effect that there was no disability of insanity affecting either the execution of the mortgages or the service of the summons and complaint, the injunction was properly refused.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
U.S

. Department of Transportation F e d e ra l Aviatio n Ad mi ni s trati o n Office of the Chief Counsel

BY FE D EX AND FACS IMILE August 30 , 2013
The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S.**Depa~tment** ofTranspmtation Oftice of Hearings , M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue , S.E. (E 11-31 0) Washington , DC Fax: 202-366-7536 800 In dependence Ave., S

.W.**5£~ ~**  D.C. 20591**ZO i3** **~** 

### P 2 = 13

Re: 

### In the Matter of Trans Time Express , DOT Docket No. TBA, FAA case no
. 2011 SW700220
Dear Judge Yoder:
The FAA is requesting an ex'tension of the scheduling deadline agreed upon by both parties during a conference call held on July 22 , 2013. The patties agreed that the filing of stipulation s and witness lists , including summaries ofthe proposed testimony , and exchange ofexhibits , would be completed on August 30 , 2013. The FAA is unabl e to meet the August 30 submission date because it has not yet received Respondent ' s responses to the FAA 's intenogatori es and request for production of documents. On August 26 , 2013 , the FAA filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in an attempt to procure the remaining discovery in order to meet the August 30 submission date. To date, the FAA has received no further discovery from Respondent. Th e FAA , therefore, re spectfu lly requests an extension for fi ling of stipulations and witness li sts and exchange ofexhibits to September 30 , 2013. Sincerely,
Peter Lynch Assistant Chief Counsel**By:~-- ~~** **~-------** Sabrina Ja , Attorney Office ofthe Chief Counsel
Cc by FedEx : Cameron Niakan, Esq. lOlOl Grosvenor Pl. #620 Rockvill e, MD 20852
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, JEFFREY A. HAWTHORNE, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Photon Dynamics, 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 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 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.

/s/ JEFFREY A. HAWTHORNE
------------------------
JEFFREY A. HAWTHORNE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date: December 14, 2004
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00173

- CR

R AVEN F AYE T HIEBAUD

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13249)

February 28, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGM ENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment , the incorporated order to

withdraw funds, and the bill of costs are modified to delete the $15 filing fee for the

State’s motion to revoke probation . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court

is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
New Mexico Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revisions 

 September 5, 2013

NM064-03-01 Enclosures to New Mexico State Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revisions submitted to EPA October 7, 2013 

NM064-03-02 Chapter 10, Section 309 Revised State Implementation Plan 

NM064-03-03 Appendix D – Revised New Mexico BART Determination for San Juan Generating Station 

NM064-03-04 NMED Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony – August 16, 2013 

NM064-03-05 NMED Ex. 1 Clean Air Act § 169A and 169B 

NM064-03-06 NMED Ex. 2 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 

NM064-03-07 NMED Ex. 3 40 C.F.R. § 51.309 

NM064-03-08 NMED Ex. 4 BART Guidelines – Appendix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Published at 70 Fed. Reg. 39104 

NM064-03-09 NMED Ex. 5 “Term Sheet” between U.S. EPA, NMED, and PNM 

NM064-03-10 NMED Ex. 6 BART Analysis Addendum, PNM San Juan Generating Station, April 1, 2013 

NM064-03-11 NMED Ex. 7 Affidavits of publication of public hearing notices 

NM064-03-12 NMED Ex. 8 Public Comments Submitted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

NM064-03-13 NMED Ex. 9 Public Comments Submitted by the National Park Service 

NM064-03-14 NMED Ex. 10 Testimony of Ted Schooley 

NM064-03-15 NMED Ex. 10a Resume of Ted Schooley 

NM064-03-16 NMED Ex. 11 Testimony of Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn 

NM064-03-17 NMED Ex. 11a Resume of Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn 

NM064-03-18 NMED Ex. 12 Testimony of Gi-Dong Kim 

NM064-03-19 NMED Ex. 12a Resume of Gi-Dong Kim 

NM064-03-20 NMED Ex. 13 Resume of Rita Bates 

NM064-03-21 NMED Ex. 14 NMED responses to comments of the National Park Service 

NM064-03-22 NMED Ex. 15 Proposed statement of reasons for adoption of regulatory changes 

NM064-03-23 Public Service Company of New Mexico Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony – August 16, 2013 

NM064-03-24 NMED Notice of Publication of Hearing Notice and Public Review Drafts – July 2, 2013 

NM064-03-25 Attachment 1 Chapter 10 Public Review Draft 

NM064-03-26 Attachment 2 Appendix D Public Review Draft 

NM064-03-27 Attachment 3 Redline/strikeout of Changes between NOI version and Public Review Draft of Chapter 10 

NM064-03-28 Attachment 4 Redline/strikeout of Changes between NOI version and Public Review Draft of Appendix D 

NM064-03-29 Public Comments Received by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board 

NM064-03-30 EarthJustice/Western Environmental Law Center – September 3, 2013 

NM064-03-31 Alex J. and Felicity B. Gonzales – August 19, 2013 

NM064-03-32 EDL Consulting – August 23, 2013 

NM064-03-33 Irvin & Norma Jean Jones – undated 

NM064-03-34 Robert E. Reed – August 26, 2013 

NM064-03-35 NMED Exhibit Presented at September 5, 2013 Hearing 

NM064-03-36 NMED Ex. 16 Corrections to Chapter 10 and Appendix D 

 NM064-03-37 Transcript of Hearing – September 5, 2013 

NM064-03-38 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Statement of Reasons for Adoption of SIP Revisions 

***********************************end*****************************************
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT**

**OF**

**EXABYTE CORPORATION**

**FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005**

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Exabyte Corporation (“Exabyte”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Exabyte for the quarter ended March 31, 2005.

We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exabyte.

This Certification is executed as of May 12, 2005.

| /s/ TOM W. WARD |
|-----------------|

Tom W. Ward

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

| /s/ CARROLL A. WALLACE |
|------------------------|

Carroll A. Wallace

Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
----

Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION1350)

 

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of 2000 New Commerce, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Troy Nikolai, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

 

 

***/s/ Troy Nikolai                   ***

Troy Nikolai

Dated: October 27, 2005

----
FILED # C14873-00
                                                           MAY 24, 2001
                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                           DEAN KELLER
                                                           -----------
                                                  DEAN KELLER SECRETARY OF STATE



              CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                MULLER A.I., INC.
                               (the "Corporation")

           The undersigned, being respectively the President and Secretary of
the Corporation, do hereby certify:

         1. The original articles were filed with the Office of the Secretary of
State on May 26, 2000.

           2. The Board of Directors of the Corporation at a meeting duly held
on the 1st day of May, 2001 adopted a resolution to amend the original articles
as follows:

           Article FIRST is hereby amended to read as follows:

"FIRST:              The name of the corporation is Struthers, A.I., Inc."

           3. The number of shares of the Corporation outstanding and entitled
to vote on an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation are 20,000, that the
said changes and amendments have been consented to and approved by the
stockholder holding all of the stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote
thereon.

/s/ MARIANO RAIGO                                 /S/ DENNIS D. GOURLEY
------------------------                          -----------------------
Mariano Raigo, President                          Dennis D. Gourley, Secretary




STATE OF IOWA                                       )
                                                    )SS.:
COUNTY OF ALLAMAKEE                                 )

           On the day of May, 2001 before me personally appeared Mariano Raigo
and Dennis D. Gourley, each of whom acknowledged to me that he executed the
above instrument.


/S/ LAWRENCE D. McGRAW                  LAWRENCE D. McGRAW
-------------------------               MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Notary Public                           NOVEMBER 30, 2004




<PAGE>
* 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. 03-50018

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL TERRAZAS-LUCERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1270-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Raul Terrazas-Lucero 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. 

Terrazas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Terrazas thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the
No. 03-50018

-2-

maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

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. 

Terrazas acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
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 Annual Report of Speedus Corp. (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), I, Thomas M. Finn,
Treasurer and Chief Financial 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: (1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements
  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, amended; 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:
April 2, 2007By:
/s/ Thomas M. FinnName:
Thomas M. FinnTitle:
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer 6