alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne D. THOMPSON, a/k/a Buck Naked, a/k/a Wayne Donnell Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6862

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

*816Wayne D. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys; Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and ■ MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

■ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne D. Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and Thompson’s informal appellate brief and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The
 accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
 2010 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.                               

|                         |                         
|------------------------ | ------------------------
|Date:
 February 11, 2011 |                         
|                         | /s/ Stryker
 Warren, jr.
|                         | Stryker
 Warren, jr.    
|                         | Chief
 Executive Officer
|                         | /s/ Brian J.
 Smrdel    
|                         | Brian J.
 Smrdel        
|                         | Chief
 Financial Officer

---
Thomas CORRINGTON, et al. v. Gino ASCANI

NO. 2018-CC-0537

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Denied.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (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 results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: September 10, 2010





/s/ Jane MorlokJane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer






E-4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PETER JAMES SOROKAPUT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 391 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
NAICS Category (Description) Total Dollars Total 

Actions

23 (CONSTRUCTION) $378,977,194.72 1,519

54 (PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES) $324,275,829.35 1,510

56 (ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION SERVICES) $208,305,849.84 775

33 (MANUFACTURING (METALS, MACHINERY, COMPUTER, ELECTRONICS ELECTRICAL TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT, FURNITURE, MISCELLANEOUS)) $180,804,693.04 3,012

72 (ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES) $86,491,685.31 2,565

62 (HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE) $71,483,513.29 468

61 (EDUCATIONAL SERVICES) $54,450,928.37 258

49 (POSTAL SERVICE, COURIER/MESSANGER, WAREHOUSING) $48,884,898.84 24

51 (INFORMATION) $46,799,355.65 824

48 (TRANSPORTATION) $23,887,211.82 95

31 (MANUFACTURING (FOOD, TEXTILE, APPAREL, LEATHER)) $22,929,565.45 615

81 (OTHER SERVICES (EXCEPT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)) $21,201,568.62 369

53 (REAL ESTATE AND RENTAL AND LEASING) $8,199,520.17 238

32 (MANUFACTURING (PAPER, PRINTING, PETROLEUM, COAL, CHEMICAL, PLASTICS, RUBBER, NONMETALIC MINERAL)) $5,092,217.07 294

42 (WHOLESALE TRADE) $3,319,728.39 88

71 (ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RECREATION) $2,402,794.88 30

44 (RETAIL TRADE (MOTOR VEHICLE, FURNITURE, ELECTRONICS, BUILDING MATERIAL, FOOD, HEALTH, GASOLINE, CLOTHING)) $1,987,367.78 89

92 (PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION) $1,234,083.95 23

21 (MINING, QUARRYING, AND OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION) $1,096,975.50 20

11 (AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING AND HUNTING) $439,050.52 9

45 (RETAIL TRADE (SPORTING GOODS GENERAL MERCHANDISE, MISCELLANEOUS)) $228,615.04 11

22 (UTILITIES) $141,286.89 12

NO NAICS CATEGORY SPECIFIED $30,117.80 1

Total $1,492,664,052.29 12,849
Exhibit 39



Consent of I.A. (Tony) Lipiec



I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection
with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled "Technical Report on Feasibility Study for
the Blackwater Project”, dated January 22, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial
year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.



Dated this 27th day of March, 2015





|/s/
    Tony Lipiec |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:               | I.A. (Tony) Lipiec                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|Title:              | Technical
                                         Director, Process Engineering
                                                                           Amec
                                         Foster Wheeler
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0581

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CATHERINE MARIE RYMAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 28, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 17 2023

03/17/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0581
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: October 30, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard A. Ross
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Richard A. Ross                                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
Exhibit 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             NIGHTHAWK SYSTEMS, INC.

     Pursuant  to  the applicable provisions of the Nevada Business Corporations
Act,  Nighthawk  Systems,  Inc.  (the  "Corporation")  adopts  the  following
Certificate  of  Amendment to its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
by  stating  the  following:

     FIRST:  The  present  name  of  the  Corporation is Nighthawk Systems, Inc.

     SECOND:  The  following  amendment  to its Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation  was adopted by a majority vote of shareholders of the corporation
on  January  6,  2005  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  Nevada  law.

     1.  Article  IV  is  amended  to  read  as  follows:

     Capitalization.  (a)  Common Stock. The Corporation shall have authority to
     issue  200,000,000  shares  of  common  stock having a par value of one mil
     ($0.001).  All  common  stock of the Corporation shall be of the same class
     and  shall have the same rights and preferences. Fully paid common stock of
     this  corporation  shall  not be liable for further call or assessment. The
     authorized  common  shares  shall  be  issued  at  the  discretion  of  the
     Directors. (b) Preferred Stock. The Corporation shall have the authority to
     issue  5,000,000  shares  of  preferred  stock  each  having a par value of
     $0.001,  with  such rights, preferences and designations as to be issued in
     such  series  as  determined  by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

The  number of shares of the Corporation outstanding at the time of the adoption
of  the  foregoing  was  30,622,518  and  the  number of shares entitled to vote
thereon  was  the  same.  The  number  of  shares  consenting  to the action was
17,833,098.  The shareholders consenting to the action represented a majority of
the  issued  and  outstanding  shares.

     Effective  this  6th  day  of  January  2005.


                                           ---------------------------------
                                           H. Douglas Saathoff
                                           Chief Executive Officer
#### Elio Napoleon RIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73095

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Elio Napoleon Rios, Pro Se

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Jus*528tice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit. Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Elio Napoleon Rios, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for failure to show prejudice, where Rios offered no evidence of any plausible grounds for relief. *Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey,*514 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2008) (to establish prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance in failing to raise claims for relief, a petitioner must “show plausible grounds for relief’ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rios’s contentions that the agency erred or abused its discretion in denying his application for cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as to the BIA’s 2013 order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review of a final order of removal must be filed within 30 days of that order); *Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review an underlying order of removal, where a petitioner did not seek timely review of that order, and instead filed a petition for review from the denial of a later motion to reopen).

We do not consider the documents that Rios submitted with his opening brief because they were not part of the administrative record. *See 8*U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(judicial review is limited to the administrative record); *Dent v. Holder,*627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review for out of record evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Protocol
Systems, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1999 and
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the
six month period ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,352
<SECURITIES>                                    10,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,950<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                     10,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,766
<PP&E>                                          15,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,646
<SALES>                                         31,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,052
<CGS>                                           16,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,731
<INCOME-TAX>                                       683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,048
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance
<F2>The amount of loss provision is not significant and has been included in other
expenses
</FN>


</TABLE>
2011

Evaluation of WITec Raman System 

March 31st , 2011

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
2011

3 coats on 4” oxide wafer 

 

•Single-spectrum from a random location on the fabric.•Excitation wavelength = 532 nm

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
2011

Scanning Raman Spectroscopy

•A 5um x 5um region of the CNT film was scanned with a step of 0.33um.•Integrated G-band from each spot was divided by the integrated D-band from the same spot to create the G/D ratio map (left figure).•Integrated RBM region from each spot was used to create the RBM map on the right.•The provide a spatial Raman map of the CNT fabric showing how the G/D ratio and the RBM region can vary from spot to spot.

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
2011

G/D ratio map vs SEM:

Not the same location

5 um

1 8503 5505 2506 9508 65010 3512 0513 7515 45

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
2011

RBM map vs SEM:

Not the same location

206 0236 3266 5296 8327 0357 3387 5417 8448 0

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
2011

5 um

** COMPANY SANITIZED **
#### Rust Exr. vs. Witherington.

Under our administration system, an executor *de son tori,*as at common law. is unknown. *{Bamsisn vs. Odum.)*

*Appeal from the Circuit Cov/rt of Union County.*

Hon. Shelton Watson, Circuit Judge.

QuilliN and S. H. Hempstead, for tbe appellant.

Mr. Justice Hanly

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by tbe appellee against tbe appellant as executor *de son tort*of Alfred Bust, deceased, in the Union Circuit Court, on a promissory note averred to have been made by tbe decedent to the appellee.

The appellant interposed his three pleas in bar to the appellee’s action in tbe court below, *to wit: non*assumpsit, *ne vmques executor andplene administravit,*to which issues were taken, and a trial of those issues was bad before a jury, who returned a verdict for tbe appellee for tbe amount of tbe note declared on, and interest by way of damages. The court proceeded to render judgment on said verdict against appellant, *de boñis testatoris, si non, de bonis propriis.*A motion for a new trial was made in tbe court below by the appellant, and on its being overruled, he excepted, setting out all the evidence given at the trial, and saving several exceptions reserved during its progress. We do not, however, deem it essential to make a further statement of the case. The cause is brought to this court by appeal.

Several errors are assigned and insisted upon, why said judgment should be reversed, and among them the same question is *130presented, as- tbe one we have just determined in the case of *Barasien vs. Odum.*We, therefore, reversejjthis cause for the reasons assigned for reversing that one.

The judgment in this cause as rendered bj the Circuit Court differs from the judgment rendered in the case of *Barasien vs. Odum.*

The party attempted to proceed in this action according, to the practice of the common law. There was an issue formed upon the plea of *ne unques executor,*and this issue was found for the appellee. In such case, it was the practice in a proceeding against an executor *de son tort,*to render judgment *de bonis jpropriis.*See *Toller’s Exrs.*473. But as we have held in the case of *Barasien vs. Odum,*our statute has changed the common law in this particular. With us, persons sued as executors or administrators, are not made personally liable in any action; nor shall persons sued as executors of their own wrong, be made liable to a greater extent than they would otherwise be by reason of any such person having pleaded any false plea. See *Dig., sec.*70, *chap.*125, p. 807. Yiewing this judgment, either according to the principles of the common law, or in reference to our statute, it is erroneous for the reason of its particular structure.

For these causes, the judgment of the Union Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded thereto with instructions to that court to proceed therein, according to law, and not inconsistent herewith.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Executive Officer**

**of TGC Industries, Inc. Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification isfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K(the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, of TGCIndustries, Inc. (the “Company”). I, Wayne A. Whitener, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Form 10-K fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuantto Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| Date:  March 16, 2010 | By:    |    /s/ Wayne A. Whitener    |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Wayne A. Whitener                     |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----