alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Zachary Lee OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Larry Thompson, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6151

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Zachary Lee Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Lee Oaks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or *164judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Oaks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JOSHUA C. SMITH

*Richard T. Meehan, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Judith Rossi,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 16, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 600 (AC 16374), is denied.

CALLAHAN, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# StarBamie

r Si

212 1 S W19" ' Avenu e Roa d. Ocala , Florid a3447 1 ,

352.867.402 0 " ' •• • - ' -' ^ Alle nParson s Augus t 27 , 201 0 Publishe r Aloh al,e\ ' Associat e Directo r Smal l Communit y Ai r

Ser\ic e Developmen t Progra m(SCASDP ) Dea r Ms . Ley , Th e Ocal aStar-Banne r fully support s th e Gainesville-.\lachu aCounr\ " Regiona l Airpor t Authority' s reques t

fo r aSmal l CommunJh ' Ai r Servic e De\'elDpmen t gran t t o hel p suppor t

th e ne w America nEagl e Airline s ser\'ic c bel^vee nGainesvill e an dMiam i an dth e existin g loca l ai r carriers , Delt aAi r

Line s an dU S Airways . Th e Star

Banne r recognize s th e importanc e o f ai r ser\'ic e t o ect>nomi c developmen t an dth e quality ' o f

lif e fo r resident ? an dvisitor s i nou r

region . VX' e wan t t o hel p ensur e th e succes s o f th e ne w America nAirline s servic e betwee nGainesvill e an dth e Miam i hub . W' e ar e alread y workin g closel y wit hth e Airpor t AuthoriU ' an dar e committe dt o matchin g fund s spent . Th e lac k o f ai r servic e t o Sout hFlorid aan dadequat e connectin g servic e t o internationa l destination s ha s force d man y t o commut e t o an dfro mothe r airport s o r

mak e th e exhaustin g 4 + hou r tri p t o Miam i b y auto . Additionally , American' s extensiv e domesti c an dinternationa l rout e structur e fro mMiam i wil l provid e ne w trave l option s an dagreate r leve l o f frequency . Du e t o th e critica l importanc e o f qualiU ' ai r

servic e fo r

ou r region , th e Star-Banne r i s willin g t o matc hfund s spen t wit hou r

organizatio nt o hel p America nAirLne s establis hit s ne w rout e betwee nGN V an dMIA . Wit h nearl y 200,00 0 dail y reader s i nprin t an donline , w e believ e ou r donatio nfo r

advertisin g wil l hel p mak e th e ne w servic e successful . I urg e yo u t o procee dwit happrovin g th e Airpor t Authorit\'' s reques t

fo r agran t t o assis t wit hmarketin g effort s fo r th e nex t

tw o years . I t

1 ca noffe r

additiona l insights , pleas e don' t hesitat e t o contac t

m e

Kn n o r

Th e Ne w YorfcTime

s Compan y
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40092 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RICARDO TIRADO
,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 155

- 3

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Tirado has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Tirado has filed response s

. The record is not sufficiently d eveloped to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Tirado ’s claim of ine ffective assistance of counsel;
we therefore decline to consider t he claim without prejudice to collateral

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40092 Document: 00513079523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 40092

2 review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied
, 135 S. Ct. 123 ( 201 4). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Tirado ’s response s . We concur with counsel’s

asses sment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Tirado’s mot ion s for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Case: 14-40092 Document: 00513079523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Lavelle, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | By: /s/ James R. Lavelle
James R. LavelleChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | By: /s/ Curtis J. Parker

Curtis J. ParkerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie DELGADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2995

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Leroy KIRKLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16787.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1966.

Leroy Kirkland, in pro. per.

William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges, and FOX*, District Judge.

*

 Honorable Noel P. Fox, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

*688PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried and convicted of robbery armed and aggravated assault in an Ohio court. On appeal his conviction was affirmed. Subsequently he filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court for leave to appeal. Such motion was granted. In said appeal appellant claimed that he had suffered Federal constitutional abuse prior to his trial and conviction by the fact that there had been an illegal delay in his arraignment and by the fact that there had been an illegal search.

The Ohio court, after a hearing before a Master Commissioner, found that appellant had shown no substantial constitutional question.

It appears to be conceded that no motion to suppress evidence was ever made and that there was no objection at trial to admission of evidence which appellant now contends to have been illegally seized.

As to the claim of illegal delay in arraignment, there is no showing that any confession was received in evidence and no prejudice is shown to have resulted to appellant from any such delay.

Additionally, as to these two issues, a review of the petition filed before the United States District Judge convinces us that the allegations therein contained are too vague and conclusional (particularly when measured against the files and records available to the District Judge) to require our reversal for factual hearing. United States v. Orlando, 327 F.2d 185 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 825, 85 S.Ct. 50, 13 L.Ed.2d 35 (1964). Cf. Scott v. United States, 349 F.2d 641 (C.A. 6, 1965).

Before Judge Underwood, and before us, appellant also presents a third issue referring to a deposition which he apparently claims was received in evidence. He claims that he was denied Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation of witnesses by the fact that he did not have a chance to be represented at the taking of the deposition. It is clear that this issue was not presented to the Ohio State Supreme Court in his prior appeal. Judge Underwood held in this regard that he had not exhausted his state remedy.

Appellant has a method of presenting this issue to the Ohio State Supreme Court under Sections 2953.21-2953.24 of the Ohio Revised Code. We have previously held that he should be required to do so before litigating the issue in the Federal courts. Saulsbury v. Green, 318 F.2d 320 (C.A. 6, 1963); Click v. State of Ohio, 319 F.2d 855 (C.A. 6, 1963).

Affirmed.
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 MARCH 31, 2011

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 March 31, 2011.

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, 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 May 4, 2011.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John D. Bair                                 
|Name: John D. Bair Title:
Chief Executive Officer
----

**Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp**CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS  LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  TORONTO • MONTREAL

CONSENT OF SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP

 

The undersigned, Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp, hereby consents to the use of our name and the use of our opinion dated February 23, 2007 on the consolidated financial statements of Micromem Technologies Inc. (the Company) included in its Annual Report on Form 20-F being filed by the Company, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006.

 

|              | /s/ Schwartz Levitsky Feldman llp |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Toronto, Ontario  | Chartered Accountants             |
| February 28, 2007 | Licensed Public Accountants       |
|              |                              |

----
#### Luis Gonzalo FLORES-SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70957

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Anya McLean, McLean Law Firm PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: 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 **

Luis Gonzalo Flores-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 Ú.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Flores-Solis failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See id.*at 1073; *Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the petitioner’s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Pannell, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 737]

*542Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered May 21, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied due process by the People’s failure to disclose the minutes of the complainant’s grand jury testimony before the pretrial suppression hearing, because the undisclosed testimony that the complainant did not identify the defendant at the scene of the crime, even if true, would not have materially affected the outcome of the hearing *(see Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]; *People v Clark,*88 NY2d 552 [1996]). The arresting officer’s conversation with the complainant, together with his observation of the defendant, provided him with a founded suspicion that criminality was at hand, even in the absence of an on-scene identification by the complainant *(see People v Simmons,*298 AD2d 468, 469 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 645 [2003]). Moreover, the arresting officer had an objective, credible reason to initially approach the defendant and question him as to whether he possessed a knife *(see People v Ocasio,*85 NY2d 982 [1995]; *People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 184-185 [1992]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 222-223 [1976]). In any event, the defendant failed to articulate which portion of the complainant’s grand jury testimony allegedly contradicted the hearing testimony of the arresting officer, or defeated the officer’s claim that he had a founded suspicion to approach and question him. Since the exculpatory nature of the undisclosed material is completely speculative *(see People v Piro,*121 AD2d 748, 750 [1986]; *People v Jones,*85 AD2d 50 [1982]), we reject the defendant’s assertion that the People failed to timely disclose material in violation of *Brady v Maryland (supra).*Hence, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial or to reopen the suppression hearing *(see People v Clark, supra).*

The defendant’s claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Bien,*77 NY2d 885, 886 [1991]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; *People v Joseph,*298 *543AD2d 601 [2002]), and in any event, the comments do not warrant a new trial. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### James Irvin HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORPORATION; Warden Frank Shaw; Gabriel Walker, Assistant Warden; Ella Scott; Tira Jackson, Deputy Warden; Tracy Arbutknot, Case Manager; Chaplin Roscoe Barnes; Sheidra Arrington; Recreation Coordinator; Larry Lee, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-60192

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 5, 2017

James Irvin Hill, Pro Se

Steven James Griffin, Esq., Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees Management Training Corporation, Warden Frank Shaw, Gabriel Walker, Ella Scott, Tira Jackson, Tracy Arbutknot, Chaplin Roscoe Barnes, Sheidra Arrington

Tommy Darrell Goodwin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee Larry Lee

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*231PER CURIAM: *

James Irvin Hill, formerly Mississippi prisoner # 36106, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, in part, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and, in part, on the merits. The district court denied Hill’s IFP motion below and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Hill is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not in good faith because he failed to identify a nonfrivolous issue, or any issue, for appeal. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Hill’s filings before this court are insufficient to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal in this case. Accordingly, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); *Jammer v. Thomas,*211 Fed.Appx. 286, 286-87 (5th Cir. 2006). Hill is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be permitted 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).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 13.2

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 on Form 20-F of Wavecom SA (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Deborah Choate, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:



Dated:
April 16, 2004

| |  |  | /s/DEBORAH CHOATEDeborah Choate
Chief Financial Officer
Wavecom SA
| |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**MUZAK HOLDINGS LLC**

**Section 302 Certifications**

 

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Muzak Holdings LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Lon E. Otremba, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

March 30, 2004 

/s/ Lon E. Otremba 

Name: Lon E. Otremba 

Title: President
#### Gnilbe Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Wm. T. Keogh Amusement Company et al., Appellants.

Argued May 19, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*876
      *John Kadel, Sol A. Herzog*and *William B. Butler*for appellants.

*David Vorhaus*and *Sidney Greenman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
Exhibit
32.5














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE


OFFICER
REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING


FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS









I, Neil
Smit, the President and Chief Executive Officer of CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO
Holdings Capital Corp. (the "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:




·
            fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and




·
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











/s/ Neil Smit


Neil
Smit


President and Chief
Executive Officer


March21, 2008