alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timmy Dee PERRIN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51060 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 22, 2017

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

James Joseph Mongaras, Jr., Sorrels, Udashen *&*Anton, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant ■

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Timmy Dee Perrin was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and possession of firearms in furtherance of the aforementioned drug trafficking crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 180 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

Perrin argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because no rational trier of fact could have credited the testimonies of his codefendants. Their testimonies were not incredible as a matter of law. *See United States v. Osum,*943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, this claim of error is unavailing. *See United States v. Zamora,*661 F.3d 200, 209 (5th Cir. 2011).

Next, Perrin argues that the district court erred in admitting under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of his prior arrest. This evidence was not admissible under Rule 404(b) because the Government presented no evidence that Perrin committed the prior bad act. *See United States v. Gonzalez-Lira,*936 F.2d 184, 189-90 (5th Cir. 1991). We need not decide whether the district court plainly erred in admitting this evidence because any error did not affect Perrin’s substantial rights. There is not a reasonable probability of a different outcome in this case given the codefendants’ inculpatory testimonies against Perrin and other circumstantial evidence of Perrin’s guilt. *See United States v. Cervantes,*706 F.3d 603, 616 (5th Cir. 2013).

*200The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            87
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         1,421
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   30,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               0
<LOANS>                                       29,893
<ALLOWANCE>                                      277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                63,663
<DEPOSITS>                                    34,234
<SHORT-TERM>                                   9,550
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              435
<LONG-TERM>                                    6,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         106
<OTHER-SE>                                    12,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                63,663
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,157
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                954
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  57
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               2,168
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               817
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,239
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            929
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  463
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       463
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     321
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  3.01
<LOANS-NON>                                      104
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 249
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      4
<RECOVERIES>                                      32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                277
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             277
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick J. O’Donnell, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 908]

Crew III, J.P

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered March 29, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with robbery in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree arising out of the robbery of a convenience store in July 2001. Following a suppression hearing, at which defendant unsuccessfully challenged the probable cause for his warrant-less arrest, as well as the voluntariness of certain incriminating statements made by him, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a term of imprisonment of *61⁄2*years. Defendant appeals.

Inasmuch as the record reveals a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of defendant’s right to appeal, he may not now challenge either the denial of his suppression motion *(see People v Sayles,*292 AD2d 641, 642 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 681 [2002]) or the alleged severity of his sentence *(see People v De Berardinis,*304 AD2d 914, 916 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 580 [2003]). Finally, we discern no extraordinary circumstances present that would justify a reduction of the sentence imposed *600in the interest of justice *(see People v Gotham,*284 AD2d 578, 579 [2001]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to**

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

 

In connection with the annual report of Blockbuster Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Larry J. Zine, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 29, 2005 

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Blockbuster Inc. and will be retained by Blockbuster Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clifton HUDSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1158

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: October 25, 2017

William W. Mickle, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Clifton Hudson, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clifton Hudson challenges the. sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to a robbery charge. His 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), challenging his career-offender designation and arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Hudson entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Order filed, May 28, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-15-00064-CR

 14-15-00065-CR

 14-15-00066-CR

____________

WILLIAM MARKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1852392, 1852393, 1852394

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 07, 2015. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Sandra Powell, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### HILLCREST LABORATORIES, INC., Appellant v. MOVEA, INC., Appellee

2016-1738

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

James R. Barney, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Rajeev Gupta, Karthik Ku-mar.

Pierre Yanney, Stroock & Stroock *&*Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee.

(Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do
hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

        (1) 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
Registrant.


/s/ James J. McNamara
---------------------------------
Name:  James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  June 11, 2004



















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 National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, AntonioLopes, Chief Financial Officer of 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:

        (1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

        (2) The information contained inthis Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 28, 2004

|   | /s/Antonio Lopes Antonio Lopes |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                   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 June 30, 2004 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 13, 2004             /s/ Joseph A. Turek
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Joseph A. Turek
                                   Chief Executive Officer at June 30, 2004

                                   /s/ Jim Mayer
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Jim Mayer
                                   Chief Financial Officer at June 30, 2004

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.

                                       37
#### Juan Gabriel CISNEROS, Appellant v. OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Appellees

No. 17-5032

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: August 29, 2017

Juan Gabriel Cisneros, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

Warden (Victorville USP), United States Penitentiary, Adelanto, CA, for Appellant.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: Pillard and Wilkins, 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 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, filed January 26, 2017, be affirmed. Contrary to appellant’s arguments on appeal, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), does apply and bars his claims for “declaratory, injunctive, or prospective relief.” See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (§ 1983 claims for declaratory or injunctive relief are also barred under Heck, if success of the claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of prisoner’s confinement). The crux of the claims reflects an apparent attempt to relitigate claims made in his unsuccessful direct appeal, see United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272 (5th Cir. 1997), and unsuccessful habeas proceeding, see Cisneros v. Stephens, No. 2:13-cv-126, 2014 WL 427188 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2014). Because appellant failed to show his convictions have been invalidated, the district court *526properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03059]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Virtual meeting. Note: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will 
conduct the open meeting virtually. If you would like to access the 
meeting, see the instructions below.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual 
meeting, go to the commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Democracy Engine, Inc., 
PAC (A19-18)
Proposed Rule of Agency Procedure Concerning the Treatment of Foreign 
State Respondents at the Initiation of the Enforcement Process
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-03059 Filed 2-9-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
J.A.G. v. C.T.

2016-CT-00969-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: April 10, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
# MANDATORY BULLETIN MB No.:



# L 13/082a Concerning: Gliders

L 13,

L 13A,

L 13AC Blanik Reason: Prevention

of the elevator drive inverted adjustment
(180°) during

its reinstallation

back
on the Glider. To be carried
out at the latest
by:

At the next A-type Periodical Inspection

. To be carried

out by:

Operator. Costs

to be covered

by:
Operator. Necessary material

to be supplied

by: Operator. Bulletin becomes effective:

Upon the issue date. Work

to be invested (man-hours):

0.3 Total number

of sheets:



# 4 

# ~~u. Fridrich **~** 

# . . .

. 

# .

. .



# .
.. ..

.

..

.

. ....

. ..

· ··· ···

·

· ··

· ····



# ··· ·····

.

. ......

. 

# Manufacturer Engineering

data contained

in this Bulletin

is CAl Approved. Date: December 10,1998 LET, a.s., Kunovice

686 04, Czech Republic,

te

l.

: +420 632 55 44 96

, fax

: +420 632 611 26, e-mail

: ols@lel.czA.WORKPROCEDUREDismantling1.Uncoverthetailcover,pos.1accordingtotheFig.1.2.Markthespecifiedpositionontheleft-handelevator,pos.2aswellasontheelevatordriveformechanicaltransferofmotion,pos.3accordingtotheviewXusingaredcolor(syntheticpaint).3.Maintainthismarkduringwholetheoperationtime.AssemblingSetthetailcovertoitsoriginalposition.B.MATERIALNECESSARYFORONEAIRCRAFTMODIFICATIONTheoperatorwillusehisownmaterial.c.PICTUREPARTFig.No.1D.NECESSARYDOCUMENTATIONNoeffect.E.NECESSARYTOOLSNoeffect.F.SPAREPARTSINOPERATIONNoeffect.G.AIRCRAFTWEIGHTNoeffect.Sheet:2L13/082aOf:4H.RECORDINAIRFRAMELOGBOOKAFTERBULLETINIMPLEMENTATIONThecolormarkingoftheelevatoraswellasitsdriveformechanicaltransferofmotionontheleft-handsidehasbeencarriedout.Date:Carriedoutby:(Legiblesignatureofauthorizedperson)G.ACCOMPANYINGDOCUMENTATIONNoeffect.Sheet:3L13/082aOf:4X

·

Sheet

:

4 L 13/082a

4 Of:
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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended July 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher J. Artinian, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Mortons.

Date:
August 5, 2010





|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ARTINIAN                    
|Christopher J. Artinian
Chief Executive Officer



29