alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abdul Wakil AMIRI, Appellant v. LAW OFFICE OF OLIKAMMA A. EKEKWE, et al., Appellees.

No. 16-7047

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

Abdul Wakil Amiri, Washington, DC, Pro Se.

BEFORE: Rogers and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, entered April 5, 2016, dismissing without prejudice appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, be affirmed. The district courts of the United States are “courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” eases, i.e., civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district courts also have jurisdiction in “diversity” cases, i.e., civil actions between citizens of different U.S. states or between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states, provided the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, because appellant established neither federal-question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction, the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00413

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v. HORACIO CHAVEZ

On Appeal from the 264th District Court of Bell County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 60802

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appea l, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
November 21, 2013
Raymond Wayne BREEDEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

Raymond Wayne Breeden, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 The undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the Company),
has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2005 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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. Date: May 13, 2005
    
    /s/ Brion UmidiName: Brion UmidiTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### David CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald DAVIS, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-16777

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 17, 2017

Dan Carter, Pro Se

Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2010 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his *564next parole hearing for five years m accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Mars/s Law”). We dismiss.

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Carter’s next parole hearing for five years violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Nettles v. Grounds,*830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that .claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), *cert. denied,*580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); *Phelps v. Alameda,*366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Carter from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*564ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Jacky K. Anderson   |   | Date:  | May 16, 2011 |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------------|--------|
|   |   | Jacky K. Anderson       |   |   |         |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |         |   |
|   |   |                    |   |   |         |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Blake M. Edwards    |   |   |         |   |
|   |   | Blake M. Edwards        |   | Date:  | May 16, 2011 |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |         |   |
Donovan W. ENGELMANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-35

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04283**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 04283\04283_Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement x 04283\04283_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04283\04283_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04283\04283_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04283\Supporting Documents\04283_Aerial Photo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04283\Supporting Documents\04283_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04283\04283_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04283\04283_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres SANCHEZ Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4552

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 11, 2017

Filed: August 11, 2017

Katherine Ann McNamara, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U-S. Attorney’s Office, Council Bluffs, IA, for

Andres Sanchez, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Andres Sanchez challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to drug charges. Sanchez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly *176considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3653(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was below the Guidelines range, see United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
# **Exhibit 31.02**

## ** **

## **Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Michael H. Carrel, certify that:

1.   I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zamba Corporation;

2.   Based onmy 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 onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I, are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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)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

c)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.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of 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 notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | November 15, 2004       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          178,646
<SECURITIES>                                        255
<RECEIVABLES>                                    96,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                373,571
<PP&E>                                          341,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                   76,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,003,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           557,713
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           1
<COMMON>                                          2,044
<OTHER-SE>                                      234,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,003,596
<SALES>                                         521,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                521,638
<CGS>                                           327,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   495,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  31,666
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12,502
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              19,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     19,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.08
        


</TABLE>
Marquis Eric WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5190

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and BLACK and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
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 RAE Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert I. Chen, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 (Section 906), that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 I.
Chen                                          
|                     | 
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | Robert I. Chen                                              
|                     |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Alexander NICOLL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6324

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

Matthew Alexander Nicoll, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Alexander Nicoll appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 801 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a. defendant who has been sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *see*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016). Guideline § 1B1.10(d), p.s., lists the retroactively applicable amendments, and the list does not include Amendment 801. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Nicoll the relief he sought under Amendment 801. *See United States v. Dunphy,*551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Thomas R. JAMES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
1

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 19-BG-1141

IN RE KENNETH S. KAUFMAN

2019 DDN 275

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 401139

BEFORE: Glickman and Fisher, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED – January 30, 2020)

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland 

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction; this court’s

December 9, 2019, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter 

and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed;

and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to 

file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g)

affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Kenneth S. Kaufman is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re 

Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical 

reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not 

participate). It is
2

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of 

respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar

R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 March 6, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12441

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00494-CR-T-26-MAP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOSE RUIZ-ZARAGOZA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 6, 2007)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Duilio A. Espinosa-Montalban, appointed counsel for Jose Ruiz-Zaragoza,
2

has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Ruiz-Zaragoza’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Owen D. DENSON, Jr., a/k/a Hikim Shabazz, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Amir H. MOTAMED, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Motamed, Appellant, v. Regina RAMOS, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2060

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and Michael Carrington Knecht of Michael C. Knecht, P.A., Jupiter, for appellant.

Michael J. Pike and Talina Bidwell of Pike & Lustig, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, May and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

8) ll-E-19 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:05 PM Sheet 8 of 105 
P.2 

V I " 

Date 

•\\ ra .$m li!' 

\ __ .._—l 

3 - /^

 :To 

A-89-10 

II-E-1 9 

I o 

CONTACT REPORT 

,/ 

Originator / \0K r->. 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE H MEETING D Other 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION 

7 O ' 

i W cv^v\t-' (*£Ju ^- Lo,-

:iL 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER g^q Fa.c^r - *> (,-, ^ 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

SUMMARY 

pi./ di ^ <>^ .)'-iw'.jU coi f .'•'i|c^v,cii'oal. //•• ••<v.'y U .(.'t^ 

v J :^ ^A ro i A p ' /V\ ,Vva_ ^ 

T' 

to ^ c^!uA-v l 1

^ - co; ! ^ j — ^ s .'rt 

•) 

i»1 l^| "HM_, J«CVA- Coj f f^-s- t^ijf " 

I nr\ . 

p U , I cvUfc ,Afer^4. t L ,r ^ -ftiaX pu<.k*.(K S*vJLo Ca_n^o f ivUJc. o rj 

"Y k(,€cL ^ > l ft ^WccJLie ^ a^lkl S -/LL , joa- y a ^| Q , <fi ( .

 6' 

ACTION to 

l*» 

i 

Distribution: