alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DEVIN DEWAYNE BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 22-6097 (D.C. No. 5:21-CR -00180-PRW-1) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (the “Motion”). Upon consideration, the Mo tion is granted, as provided below.
This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate Appellant Devin Dewayne Bennett’s senten ce and conduct any and all proceedings necessary to resentence Appellant consiste nt with the grounds presented in the Motion, which is incorporated into th is Order and Judgment by reference.

* After examining the parties’ motion and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumen t would not material ly assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 15, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-6097 Document: 010110739678 Date Filed: 09/15/2022 Page: 12 This appeal is dismissed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam Appellate Case: 22-6097 Document: 010110739678 Date Filed: 09/15/2022 Page: 2
Rodney H. HOLMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Rodney H. Holmes, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*1009On January 24, 2018, this Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court's denial of Appellant Rodney H. Holmes's petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 Our January 24, 2018 opinion contained an order to show cause why Holmes should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings related to his life sentence for attempted first degree murder, attempted robbery, and attempted burglary with an assault (the charges enhanced due to the use of a firearm) in lower tribunal case number 01-18524A. The record indicated that Holmes had filed ten post-conviction motions, petitions or appeals in this Court.

Our order to show cause provided Holmes with a response period of forty-five days. Holmes has not filed a response. Accordingly, we conclude that Holmes has not demonstrated good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings with this Court in lower tribunal case number 01-18524A.

After notice in the form of an order to show cause and an opportunity for the incarcerated person to respond, a court may prevent further filings. *State v. Spencer*, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). We recognize that the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution-Article I, section 21 -provides an avenue for an incarcerated person to challenge the legal basis for his or her incarceration; however, this constitutional right may be forfeited if he or she abuses the judicial process. *Jimenez v. State*, 196 So.3d 499, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept from Holmes any further pro se filings related to circuit court case 01-18524A; provided, however, that the Clerk may accept filings if they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Holmes will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.

Order issued.

1

*Holmes v. State*, No. 3D17-240, 245 So.3d 857, 2018 WL 522190 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 24, 2018). On February 8, 2018, Holmes filed a motion for rehearing and rehearing *en banc* , which this Court denied on March 7, 2018.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of M~Wave, Inc.
      (the “Company”) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:
                August 11, 2006
            
            /s/
                Jim MayerJim
                MayerInterim
                Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Jeff FiglewiczJeff
                FiglewiczController
                and Principal Accounting Officer








This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Larry C. Barenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 28, 2011 as filed with the United States 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:   July 7, 2011 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
|                      | By:    | /s/   Larry C. Barenbaum |
|                      |   | Larry   C. Barenbaum 

*President   and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
COX, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I join Judge Tjoflat’s opinion for the court except for the two consecutive

paragraphs that conclude the acceptance of checks is an extension of credit. The first

of these paragraphs begins: “Whenever a seller,” etc. I concur in the judgment.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Otley L. Smith III,certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete ComplianceCorporation;

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

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

 

(b)    [paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986];

 

(c)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

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

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: May 13, 2005 | /s/ Otley L. Smith, III                 |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Otley L. Smith, III                     |
|               | President and Chief  Executive  Officer |

 

----
---

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

I, Seth Grae, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) of Lightbridge Corporation; and

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.

Date: September 17, 2014

|/s/ Seth Grae                          | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|Seth Grae, Principal Executive Officer | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Henry C. Duques, the Chief
Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Henry C. Duques    
|                       |  |  |  | Henry C. Duques        
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 

2011 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

(As approved by the shareholders April 19, 2011) 

Pursuant to the reserved power of amendment contained in Article 16 of the Fifth Third Bancorp 2011 Incentive Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended effective December 17, 2018 by changing Section 2.1(g) of the Plan to read as follows: 

(g)    “Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if the conditions set forth in any
one of the following paragraphs shall have been satisfied: 
 (i)    any Person (other than a trustee or
other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the common shareholders of the Company in substantially the same proportions as their
ownership of Stock of the Company), as a result of acquiring, or during any 12-month period having acquired, voting securities of the Company, is or becomes the Beneficial Owner, directly or indirectly, of
securities of the Company representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securities; or 

(ii)    during any 12-month period (not including any period prior
to the Effective Date), individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board and any new Director, whose election by the Board or nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders, was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Directors then still in office who either were Directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to
constitute a majority thereof; or 
 (iii)    the consummation of (1) the sale or disposition of all
or substantially all the Company’s assets; or (2) a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation which would result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately
prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity), at least 60% of the combined voting power of the voting securities of the Company (or such surviving
entity) outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation; or 
 (iv)    the shareholders of the
Company approve a plan of complete liquidation of the Company. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third Bancorp has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized representative the 17th day of December, 2018. 
  

			
	FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Robert P. Shaffer, Chief Human Resources Officer, EVP
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
            Computation of Ratio of Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                          and Preferred Stock Dividends
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Three Months Ended                             Year Ended
                                               March 31,                                 December 31,
                                      -----------------------------      ---------------------------------------------
                                          1997           1996                1996           1995            1994
                                      -------------- --------------      ------------- --------------- ---------------
<S>                                   <C>            <C>                <C>            <C>             <C>          
Income from continuing
 operations before income
 taxes and preferred dividends        $     52,811   $      42,669      $    185,822   $     150,834   $     122,863
Add fixed charges:
 Interest expense                           97,172          88,224           366,543         337,814         210,001
 One-third rentals                             694             535             2,368           2,084           2,053
                                      ------------   -------------      ------------   -------------   -------------
   Total fixed charges                      97,866          88,759           368,911         339,898         212,054
                                      ------------   -------------      ------------   -------------   -------------
Income as adjusted                    $    150,677   $     131,428      $    554,733   $     490,732   $     334,917
                                      ------------   -------------      ------------   -------------   -------------
Ratio of income to fixed
 charges                                      1.54            1.48              1.50            1.44            1.58
                                      ============   =============      ============   =============   =============

Preferred stock dividends
 on a pre-tax basis                   $      1,932   $           0      $          0   $           0   $           0

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 stock dividends                      $     99,798   $      88,759      $    368,911   $     339,898   $     212,054
                                      ------------   -------------      ------------   -------------   -------------
Ratio of income to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 stock dividends                              1.51            1.48              1.50            1.44            1.58
                                      ============   =============      ============   =============   =============
</TABLE>
                                       12
Erik X. ALONSO, LCSW, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EX PARTE Rick MARTIN

CR-16-0352

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Desmond Andre BUTLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0872

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied.

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6635

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH EUGENE MCDANIEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-111, CA-00-90-3-MU)

Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2001) motion. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. McDaniel, Nos. CR-94-111; CA-00-90-3-MU (W.D.N.C.

filed Mar. 21, 2001; entered Mar. 23, 2001). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          91,154
<SECURITIES>                                    11,081
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,715
<PP&E>                                         157,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 538,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           938
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   538,913
<SALES>                                        349,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,982
<CGS>                                          188,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  706,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (353,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (353,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (353,689)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.80)
        

</TABLE>
Steven Clay OSBORNE v. Kim Wright OSBORNE

2160216

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
CLARK CONSTRUCTION, INC., of Mississippi v. PHOENIX BLOCK CO. et al.

1150464

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Ivan Ortiz FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50351 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/28/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sergio Ivan Ortiz Frias, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Ivan Ortiz Frias has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortiz Frias has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.