alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Darru K. "Ken" HSU, Individually and as Trustee of the Darru K. Hsu and Gina T. Hsu Living Trust U/AO5/O5/03; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15588

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Darru K Hsu, Pro Se

Raymond *A.*Cardozo, David C. Powell, Ashley L. Shively, Attorneys, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Darru K. “Ken” Hsu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Estate of Stonehill,*660 F.3d 415, 443 (9th Cir. 2011), and we *affirm.*

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hsu relief from the judgment because Hsu failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant perpetrated a “fraud on the court.” *Pizzuto v. Ramirez,*783 F.3d 1171, 1181 (9th Cir. 2015) (requiring more specific evidence of fraud than plaintiffs “series of allegations and implications”). We reject as without merit Hsu’s contention that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. *See id.*(“The burden of proof rests with petitioner to show the fraud by clear and convincing evidence.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

*977All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Earl VANDIVER v. STATE

CR-16-0088

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
NO. 32.1








Form
10-KSB


Echo
Resources, Inc.


File
No. 000-26703





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  Echo
Resources,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Pieter
DuRand,  Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer
of the  Company,  certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) 
the Report fully  complies  with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange 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:
September 25,
2008                                                   By:   /s/ 
PieterDuRand


Pieter DuRand


Chief Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer





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


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Echo Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Echo Resources, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the
Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009.

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of November 16, 2009.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John D. Bair                                 
|Name: John D. Bair Title:
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6894

WILLIAM R. SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-1329-3-18BC) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William R. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). Smith’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Smith failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of C.G.B. and H.F.B., Children

No. 06

- 19

- 00042

- CV Appeal from the 115th District Court of Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 185

- 18 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chi ef Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant s pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
     1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Excalibur Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William S.H. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      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/ William S.H. Stuart
-----------------------
William S.H. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2004
Christopher J. CAMPA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Steeven KNIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4597

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Austin LEAVITT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Christie S. Utt, General Counsel, and Brandi Y. Thompson, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED.

Wolf, Roberts, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
#### Leon FERGUSON-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. HORTON, Institutional Investigator; Burnette, Institutional Investigator; T. Dowell, Institutional Program Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7705

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Leon Ferguson-El, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leon Ferguson-El appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Ferguson-El v. Horton,*No. 7:16-cv-00120-MFU-RSB, 2016 WL 7031804 (W.D. Va. Dec. 1, 2016). 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*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03604]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed additions to the procurement list.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the 
Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before: March 20, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or to submit 
comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f2c223b2a290a0b3d0a082f2e0d0603061b1620010a41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcfff1e8f9fad9d8eed9dbfcfdded5d0d5c8c5f3d2d992dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of 
the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit 
agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe 
disabilities.
    The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Service(s)

Service Type: Base Supply Center
Mandatory for: Hanscom Air Force Base
Designated Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind and Visually 
Impaired, Inc., West Allis, WI
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE, FA2835 AFLCMC HANSCOM 
PZI

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Acting Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2022-03604 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10073

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14−cr−00408−WKW−TFM−6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WAYNE CLYDE TERRY

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(October 3, 2017)

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carly B. Wilkins, appointed counsel for Wayne Clyde Terry in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 17-10073 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 Terry’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-10073 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 2 of 2
----

----

| (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. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2009 | /s/      Richard R. Ivanovick |
|---------------------|-------------------------------|
|                | Richard      R. Ivanovick     |
|                | Chief      Financial Officer  |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6316 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6316

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an expiration date 
 of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

 Ms. Titus (for herself and Mr. Perry) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an expiration date 
 of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(i) Expiration of Committee Resolutions.--
            ``(1) In general.--Unless a lease is awarded or a 
        construction, alteration, repair, design, or acquisition 
        project is initiated not later than 5 years after the 
        resolution approvals adopted by the Committee on Transportation 
        and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives or the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
        pursuant to subsection (a), such resolutions shall be deemed 
        expired.
            ``(2) Application.--This subsection shall only apply to 
        resolutions approved after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
      T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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:  November
                9, 2007
            By:       /s/
                Thomas T. HawkerThomas
                T. HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive Officer
#### M.C., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his parent D.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35828

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Donna Jo Coningsby, Pro Se

Cecil Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR—Office of the Oregon Attorney General (Salem), Salem, OR, for Defendant—Appellee

*303Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

M.C., a minor, by and through his parent D.C., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); *San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. San Francisco City & County,*364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004) (decisions regarding issue preclusion). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *United States v. Wash.,*969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed M.C.’s claims relating to the due process hearing because M.C. faded to allege a legal theory or facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief against the Oregon Department of Education (“ODE”). *See*Or. Admin. R. 581-015-2345(1)(a)(A) (“A parent may request a due process hearing if the parent does not agree with the identification, evaluation, educational placement of a child, or the provision of a free appropriate education to a child who may be disabled.”); *see also Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Dismissal of M.C.’s claims relating to the complaint resolution procedure matter was proper because M.C.’s claims were previously litigated against ODE to a final judgment in state court, both actions involve the same factual transaction, the claims could have been joined in the first action, and the remedy sought in the instant action is additional or alternative to that sought in the state court case. *See Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose,*420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law.” (citation omitted)); *Lincoln Loan Co. v. City of Portland,*340 Or. 613, 136 P.3d 1, 3-4 (2006) (elements of claim preclusion under Oregon state law).

The motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 19, 31) are denied.

M.C.’s motion to extend the time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 32 and 34) is granted. The clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 30.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M.C., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodemilio Vasquez SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40296 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rodemilio Vasquez Sanchez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodemilio Vasquez Sanchez 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). Vasquez Sanchez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Vasquez Sanchez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that *909the 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 Cir. R. 42.2. Vasquez Sanchez’s pro se motions for the appointment of counsel and to construe his response as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion are DENIED.

*

 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.