alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Miguel Angel BACILIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Blake BURNS, Plaintiffs Attorney; Michelle Hartman, Assistant District Attorney; Elizabeth Beach, District Judge; Bryan Collier, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-10037 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 11, 2017

Miguel Angel Baeilio, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Baeilio, Texas prisoner # 1912589, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and 1915A(b)(l) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Our review is *de novo. Green v. Atkinson,*623 F.3d 278, 279-80 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court did not err in dismissing in light of the fact that Bacilio’s claims regarding his state criminal conviction are barred under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because the conviction was not reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED, and Bacilio’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.

The district court’s dismissal of Bacilio’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Baeilio is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed *in forma pauperis*in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                       Consent of Independent Auditors

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. File Nos. 333-31492, 333-31498, 333-74080 and 333-74082)
pertaining to various stock option plans of Switchboard Incorporated of our
report dated January 27, 2004, except for Note T, as to which the date is March
26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Switchboard Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2003.



                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

March 26, 2004
Boston, Massachusetts
S.L. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160540

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-03-1997
<CASH>                                       1,355,691
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,815,423
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                78,218
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,004,225
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       7,604,332
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         7,600,077
<LOANS>                                     85,078,819
<ALLOWANCE>                                    511,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             105,490,960
<DEPOSITS>                                  66,276,774
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,408,384
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,332,415
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,473,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             105,490,960
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,754,882
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              134,335
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               221,147
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,110,364
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             826,304
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             826,304
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,284,060
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                450,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                852,757
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     852,757
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   525,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.02
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   191,150
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               511,489
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,072
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              525,417
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        525,417
        

</TABLE>
#### Chongsheng ZHONG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70126

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.

Drew Brinkman, Sabatino F. Leo, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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 **

Chongsheng Zhong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Zhong’s demeanor, *see Huang v. Holder,*744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving special deference to findings based on demeanor), and based on inconsistencies in his testimony as to the number of house churches he attended in China, and when the police last searched for him, *see Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Zhong’s explana*457tions for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in this case, Zhong’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Huang,*744 F.3d at 1156.

Finally, Zhong’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Zhong does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDUARDO BELLAS JR,

 

 Appellant,

v.

VAQUERO PERMIAN GATHERING 

LLC,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00213-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Ward County, Texas 

(TC# 19-05-25029-CVW)

O R D E R

On January 7, 2022, this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order required 

the parties to confer and attempt to agree upon a qualified mediator within twenty days of the date 

of the order and notify the Court of the mediator’s name and contact information. On January 27, 

2022, the appellee informed this Court the parties failed to agree on a qualified mediator. On that 

same day, the appellant filed a motion to extend time to choose a mediator. The Court DENIES 

the motion to extend time to choose a mediator. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the appeal to continue. The suspension of the appellate 

timetable is lifted and the Reporter’s Record shall be filed in this Court on or before April 7, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Blockbuster Inc. Subsidiaries**

Ardnasillagh Ltd. 

Blockbuster Argentina, S.A. 

Blockbuster Canada Co. 

Blockbuster Canada Inc. 

Blockbuster de Mexico, SA de CV 

Blockbuster Digital Inc. 

Blockbuster Distribution, Inc. 

Blockbuster Entertainment Limited 

Blockbuster Entertainment (Ireland) Limited 

Blockbuster Global Services Inc. 

Blockbuster Holdings Ireland 

Blockbuster International Spain Inc. 

Blockbuster Investments LLC 

Blockbuster Italia, S.p.A. 

Blockbuster NZ Limited 

Blockbuster Procurement LP 

Blockbuster UK Limited 

Blockbuster Uruguay Ltda. 

Blockbuster Video Danmark A/S 

Blockbuster Video Espana S.L. 

Blockbuster Video Italy, Inc. 

Cityvision Limited 

Direcorp, S.A. de D.V. 

EntretenT a Domicilo, S. de R.L. 

Movielink, LLC 

Sercorp, S.A. de C.V. 

Trading Zone Inc. 

Xtra-Vision Limited
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6162 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, 

as the ‘‘LaBruce ‘Bruce’ Tidwell Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6162 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LABRUCE ‘‘BRUCE’’ TIDWELL POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 379 North Oates Street in 

5 Dothan, Alabama, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘LaBruce ‘Bruce’ Tidwell Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘LaBruce ‘Bruce’ Tid11 well Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 In connection with the Quarterly Report ofElixir Gaming Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Gordon Yuen,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David R. Reberger,Chief 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 result of operations of the Company. |

 

 
| By:    |  /s/ Gordon Yuen                     |   | Dated: | May 14, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|
|   |  Gordon Yuen                         |   |   |              |
| Title: |  President,  Chief Executive Officer |   |   |              |
|   |                                      |   |   |              |
| By:    |  /s/ David R.  Reberger              |   | Dated: | May 14, 2008 |
|   |  David  R. Reberger                  |   |   |              |
| Title: |  Chief  Financial Officer            |   |   |              |

 

This certification is madesolely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to theknowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10771-10772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee will meet on March 16, 2022, at 11:30 a.m., Eastern Standard 
Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical 
questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to 
transportation and related equipment or technology.

[[Page 10772]]

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Status reports by working group chairs.
    3. Public comments and Proposals.

Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) 
and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a537c6f7e7e6f24597a7863646d6f784a686379246e6569246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="441d32213030216a1734362d2a23213604262d376a202b276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a> no later than March 9, 2022.
    To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral 
statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements 
at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate 
distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the 
Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation 
materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 
14, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. (10)(d)), that the portion of the 
meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control 
List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) 
and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information, contact Yvette Springer via email.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-03971 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00578

- CR

HOMERO YADO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 177th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1397026).

TO THE 177TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 30th day of June 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 6, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly,

the Court vacates the trial court’s judgment and dismisses the

case.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered June 30, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Bland.

WHEREF ORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

September 11, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
#### Darlene ZORN et al., Appellants, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 23568.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1966.

Denning Schattman, Spurlock & Schattman, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellants.

Pinkney Grissom, George C. Chapman, Dallas, Tex., Thompson, Knight, Simmons & Bullion, Dallas, Tex., of counsel, for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The facts in the case on appeal and the conclusions reached by the district court are set forth in its opinion. Zorn v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 260 F.Supp. 730. We are in agreement with the decision of the district court. Its judgment is

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zachary Joseph LOVE, also known as Zackary Joseph Love Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3581

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Filed: July 25, 2017

Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Zachary Joseph Love, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Zachary Love directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the district court’s Guidelines cal-*481dilations and suggesting that Love’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Love has filed a motion for new counsel.

To begin, we conclude that Love waived any claim of error with regard to the drug quantity attributed to him by withdrawing his objection to the calculation at sentencing. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2016) (where defendant withdrew objection to PSR enhancement in district court, claim of error on appeal was waived). Further, we find that there was no plain error in the calculation of Love’s criminal history score. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to object at sentencing results in review for plain error that affects substantial rights); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unobject-ed-to facts in PSR are deemed admitted).

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, 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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Love’s motion, and affirm the judgment.

1

, The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
**Exhibit 31(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report); and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2004