alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7827

ANTHONY MCSHEFFRY, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Maryland House of Correction-Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA00-3622-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony McSheffry, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Anthony McSheffry appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition on procedural and substantive grounds. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McSheffry’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “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’s order was filed on July 30, 2001, and entered on the docket on July 31, 2001. McSheffry’s notice of appeal was filed on October 25, 2001. Because McSheffry failed tofile a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny McSheffry’s motion for a transcript. 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 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James B. Frakes, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.Based on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




2.The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.








Dated: August 22, 2011
/s/ JAMES B. FRAKESJames B. FrakesChief Financial OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gabriel NIETO-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50420.

D.C. No. CR-03-00013-TJH-3.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 11, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Ronald L. Cheng, Scott M. Garringer, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*704Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SNEED, SKOPIL, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Gabriel Nieto-Cruz appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Nieto-Cruz contends the district court erred by denying him the benefit of safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G § 5C1.2 (incorporating the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5)). On the record before us, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred by finding that Nieto-Cruz had failed to provide the government with complete and truthful information concerning this offense. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); *United States v. Lopez,*163 F.3d 1142, 1143-44 (9th Cir.1998).

Nieto-Cruz contends the district court erred by failing to make factual findings whether he was subjected to sentencing entrapment. The defendant has the burden of proving that he was a victim of sentencing entrapment because he had neither the intent nor the ability to produce the amount of drugs involved. *United States v. Naranjo,*52 F.3d 245, 250 n. 13 (9th Cir.1995). Nieto-Cruz produced no evidence, other than his own assertions, regarding his lack of intent or lack of ability to arrange the sale 20 kilograms of cocaine. The district court found that Nieto-Cruz was critical to the deal. The district court doubted Nieto-Cruz’s assertion that this drug transaction involving a large quantity of drugs was Nieto-Cruz’s first drug transaction. The record is sufficient to show what facts the district court relied upon in finding that Nieto-Cruz did not adequately prove sentencing entrapment.

Nieto-Cruz contends the district court erred in denying his request for a “minor role” reduction in sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The downward adjustment for being a minor participant is a question of fact, and we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Nieto-Cruz was not a minor participant. *See United States v. Murillo,*255 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit .except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         274,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,938
<PP&E>                                         483,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 260,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 721,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,459,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,556
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,014,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   721,946
<SALES>                                         31,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,500
<CGS>                                            4,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  898,347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                917,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            917,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   917,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2224
<ALLOWANCES>                                        67
<INVENTORY>                                        918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3147
<PP&E>                                            3403
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3477
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            26
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        705
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7178
<SALES>                                           5912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5912
<CGS>                                             4586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1050)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          19,227
<SECURITIES>                                     6,987
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                       551
<INVENTORY>                                        517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,001
<PP&E>                                           2,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,831
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,228
<SALES>                                         15,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,557
<CGS>                                            1,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
#### Richardson *v.*Boyd.

Opinion delivered June 8, 1901.

Continuance — Absence of Defendant — Discretion.—Where defendant - and his leading counsel were absent from the trial because they were misinformed by plaintiff as to the day set for the hearing, and defendant was an important witness, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a postponement for one day, in order that defendant and his counsel might he present.

Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court.

Will P. Fjgazel, Judge.

This was an action by R. A. Boyd against D. C. Richardson. The cause was set for trial on Wednesday of the second week of court, in the absence of defendant and his counsel, hut plaintiff informed defendant’s junior counsel that the cause was set for Thursday of the second week of court, and the latter notified defendant and his leading counsel. Afterwards plaintiff informed defendant’s junior counsel that he had been mistaken, and that the cause was set for Wednesday, instead of Thursday, hut it was then too late to get word to defendant and his leading counsel in time for them to be present. When the cause was called on the day set, defendant’s junior counsel set up the foregoing facts, and asked a postponement- until the following day, alleging, in addition,. that there were ’facts essential to the defense which no *369one but defendant could prove. The court overruled tbe motion, stating that counsel for defendant should not have relied upon the information received from plaintiff. There ivas judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed.

*L. A. Byrne,*for appellant.

It was an arbitrary abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion for continuance; and in so doing the court committed reversible error. 21 Ark. 460; 40 Ark. 114.

Wood, J.

The non-attendance of the defendant (appellant) and his leading counsel, it appears, was because of a misapprehension of facts caused by the statement of the plaintiff (appellee) which was believed and acted upon, and which was incorrect. To force the trial in the absence of the defendant and his leading counsel under such circumstances would be enabling the plaintiff to gain an unjust advantage through his own wrong. It matters not, in the result to the defendant, whether the wrong was intended or not. Without entering fully into the merits of the controversy, it is easy to see that the defendant had not only reason for being present himself in person, but needed the assistance of his leading counsel. The refusal of the court to grant a continuance, or at least a postponement of the trial, under the circumstances, for a short time, to allow an opportunity for the defendant and his leading counsel to be present was, we think, an unreasonable exercise of the court’s discretion, which should be corrected by a reversal of the judgment and a new trial. It is so ordered.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION****1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofAscential Software Corporation (the “Company”) for theperiod ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, Robert C. McBride, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of his knowledgeand belief, 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.     /s/ Robert C. McBride       Robert C. McBride     Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 16, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

TINA BRICKLES, et al., : Case No. 3:18-cv-193

:

Plaintiffs, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

: 

v. : 

:

JUSTIN SANDERSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

AND EXTENDING STAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FILING OF 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PREPARATION OF RULE 26(f) REPORT

This case is set for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference on December 13, 2018 at 9:30 AM. 

The case shall remain STAYED through the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, with the exception 

that Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order and the parties shall 

prepare and file a Rule 26(f) Report prior to the Preliminary Pretrial Conference.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, November 14, 2018. 

s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-34488, 333-67371, 333-76724, 333-79385, 333-96919 and
333-100322) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-39674, 333-39676, 333-39678 and
333-103527) of Headwaters Incorporated of our report dated October 31, 2003 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Headwaters Incorporated
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
2003.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
December 1, 2003
Exhibit H

Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 32-8 Filed: 12/21/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 286
CHARVAT000006

Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 32-8 Filed: 12/21/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 287
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 28 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 28

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Capitol Visitor Center 
to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in 
connection 

              

with services to be conducted there for United States Capitol Police 
Officer William F. Evans.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 28

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Directing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque 
 situated in the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol 
for use in connection with services conducted for United States Capitol 
                    Police Officer William F. Evans.
```
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 Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan B. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust at the end of, and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ Alan B. MillerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 14, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and
will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Franck JEAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

INGRAM MOORE,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 167 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November

, 2016, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief, to

the extent it seeks a writ of mandamus, are GRANTED

.

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to adjudicate

Petitioner’s pending filing within 90 days. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve this

order on the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         14,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,813
<SALES>                                          8,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,874
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,874
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>