alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Although it has no practical effect because the parties’ settlement agreement calls for a 1

June 30, 2008, move-out date, the dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus and the underlying

appeal results in the dissolution of the stay because we no longer have a case over which we have

jurisdiction to protect. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (West 2004).

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00620-CV

In re Maria Maya Hernandez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In October 2007, this Court granted relator Maria Maya Hernandez’s motion

for emergency relief to halt an eviction. The motion for temporary relief was filed ancillary to

Hernandez’s petition for writ of mandamus, or, alternatively writ of injunction. This court granted

relief in order to protect our jurisdiction over the subject matter of the mandamus and the underlying

appeal. See In re Maria Maya Hernandez, slip op., No. 03-07-00620-CV (Tex. App.—Austin

October 30, 2007).

The parties have now filed a joint agreed motion to dismiss based on a settlement

agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition

for writ of mandamus.

1
2

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: June 5, 2008
#### Johnny Mike TORRES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 14-73356, 15-70152

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed May 26, 2017

Craig Earl Countryman, Attorney, Jared A. Smith, Attorney, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ — 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: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. The only evidence in the record that Torres’s 1993 kidnapping and beating was “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official” is Torres’s statement that Delmar Mugel, his main assailant, said he was a police officer. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The record thus does not “compel[ ] a contrary *456conclusion” to the BIA’s determination that Torres failed to establish that Mugel was a public official. *Arteaga v. Mukasey,*511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007).

Nor does the record compel a contrary-conclusion to the BIA’s determination that Torres’s fear of future harm was too speculative. Cf*. Haile v. Holder,*658 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of future harm not speculative where petitioner presented evidence of recent persecution of her father and danger faced by political dissidents).

2. Torres waived his challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and his motion for reconsideration by failing to raise these issues in his briefing. *Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S.,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

DENIED AND DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Mary O’Toole, Resp’t, *v.*The Central Park, N. & E. R. R. R. Co., App’lt.

*James F. Higgins,*for resp’t; *Henry Thompson,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 35 N. Y. State Rep., 591.
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t Judge

for the Western District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1027

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Silas Jefferson, Jr., * * [Unpublished] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 2, 1997 Filed: May 8, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARDARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Silas Jefferson appeals the 24 0-month sentence imposed by the distri ct court following his guilty plea to aiding and abettin g 1 his co-defendants in the commission of an armed bank robbery, i n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) and § 2. We affirm. We reject Jefferson's argument that the district court clear ly erred in increasing his base offense level two levels for be ing "an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal ac tivity" involving one or more other participants. See U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) & comment. (n.2) (1995); UnitedStates v. Horne , 4 F.3d 579, 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review),-2-

cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1138 (1994). The record established tha t Jefferson carried the firearm involved in the robbery, received a greater percentage of the proc eeds, and directed the actions of at least one other co-defendant. See U.S. Sentencing Guideline s Manu al § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4) (1995) (factors court shoul d consider); cf. United States v. Pedroli , 979 F.2d 116, 118 (8t h Cir. 1992) (evidence supported organizing-role enhancement wher e defendant recruited co-defendant, provided him with baseball hat, sunglasses, and demand note, and organized bank robbery).

We f urther reject Jefferson's contention that the distric t court clearly erred in denyinghim an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment under U.S. Sentenci ng Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995). United States v. Evans , 51 F.3 d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). Jefferson's conceded perjury before a magistrat e judge was inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility. Moreover, Jef fersondoes not contest the district court's assessment of a n obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Gui delines Manual § 3C1.1 (1995). This is not an "extraordinary" case tha t woul d warrant both an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and a n acceptance-of-responsibilityreduction. See U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, com ment. (n.4) (1995). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”) I, Barbra E. Kocsis,Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, thegeneral partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:                                         | May 15, 2009     |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                                          |                  |
| By                                            | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra  E. Kocsis                             |                  |
| Chief  Financial Officer                      |                  |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |                  |
|                                               |                       |        |  |

 

1

----
#### PULE, Plaintiff v. ELISARA, Defendant

No. 2-1918

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” title: “Pagofie”]

October 3, 1919

A. M. NOBLE, *President of the High Court;*and MOLIOO, *Associate Member*

FINAL JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard, and being heard before their Honors, A. M. Noble, Molioo and Fao, on the 3rd day of October, 1919, in the village of Iliili, American Samoa, and it appearing to the Court that the defendant, Elisara is a true descendant of the Pagofie family, and that he is supported in his claim for the right to register himself under the “matai” name Pagofie, succeeding the late Pagofie-Levale, by a large majority of the true descendants of the Pagofie family:—

It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court that the said Elisara is entitled to register himself under the “matai” name Pagofie, and the Secretary of Native Affairs is hereby ordered to issue to the said Elisara a certificate of registration as of October 3rd, 1919.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court that the plaintiff, Pule, is not a true descendant of the Pagofie family and he, the said Pule, and his descendants are hereby enjoined and restrained from any interference in the affairs of the said Pagofie family.

*313It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court, that the cost of this action, to-wit, $25.00 be taxed against the plaintiff, Pule.

This the 3rd day of October, A.D., 1919.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 18, 2013

t1015 

# Order

Clerk October 18, 2013

147778 & (15)

ZAKWAN MAHJOUB, M.D.,

Pl aintiff/

Counter

- Defendant/Appellant,

v SC: 147778

COA: 317489

Oakland CC: 12

- 130133

- CK

CARDIOLOGY AND VASCULAR

ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff/

Third

- Party Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

KIRIT PATEL, M.D., NISHIT CHOKSI, M.D.,

MICHELE DEGREGORIO, M.D., ABDUL

HALABI, M.D., HASAN AS ABDUL HASAN,

M.D., RAJIV NAIR, M.D., RUSSEL

STEINMAN, M.D., SHARATH CHANDRA,

M.D., DIVAKAR PAI, M.D., JAMES ALUIA,

645 BARCLAY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., and

43344 WOODWARD, L.L.C.,

Defendants,

and

JOE H. YUN, M.D., RAJENDRA PRASAD,

M.D., and ADVANCED CARDIOLOGY

ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Third

- Party Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions

presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
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 Quarterly Report
of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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; and





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




Date:  February
      16, 2010
              
              /s/ Allen E. KahnAllen
      E. KahnChief
      Financial Officer
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
MDU Communications International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Nelson, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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)
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/ SHELDON NELSON                     | 
|------------------ | -------------------------------------- | 
|                   | Sheldon Nelson                        
|                   | Chief Executive Officer and           
|                   | Chief Financial Officer               
|                   | MDU Communications International, Inc.
|                   |                                       
|December 21, 2012  |                                       
|Totowa, New Jersey |                                       



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ramon NOVARRO, Appellant, v. Peter PITCHESS, Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Appellee.

No. 20649.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1966.

John N. Frolich, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Richard Kolostian, Philip E. Grey, Asst. City Attys., Allen Uri Schwartz, Deputy, City Atty., Loo Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Ramon Novarro was convicted and sentenced in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles, California for a violation of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code of California. After certain state proceedings were had, Novarro applied to the federal district court for habeas corpus. He therein asserted that the state conviction and sentence deprived him of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This deprivation, Novarro alleged, arose from the fact that the complaint charging him with a violation of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code was not filed by the arresting officer as mandatorily required by section 40306 of the Vehicle Code. The courts of California have upheld the conviction.

The district court, without hearing, dismissed the application upon the ground that it appears from the application that Novarro “is not entitled thereto,” citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (1964). Novarro did not file an amended application, but immediately took this appeal. He does not here contend that he could, by means of an amended application, state a more favorable factual basis for relief on the ground he relied upon in the district court, than as stated in his brief on appeal.

Circumstances may be stated in which the failure to accord an individual defendant the benefit of state criminal procedures prescribed for general application, may amount to a deprivation of a right under the Constitution of the United States. Thus, in Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, where the state had authorized appeals from criminal convic*804tions, the failure to permit Griffin to appeal because, by reason of poverty, he was unable to provide a record on appeal, was held to be a deprivation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court indicated that the reason why Griffin was denied an appeal manifested an invidious discrimination.

The criminal procedure in question in our case — the requirement that the complaint be signed by the arresting officer —does not approach in significance the state procedure dealt with in *Griffin.*Moreover, nothing is alleged in Novarro’s application or brief on appeal tending to show that the signing of the complaint by a person other than the arresting officer was intended to, or resulted in, an invidious discrimination as between Novarro and other state defendants or actually prejudiced Novarro in defending against the prosecution.

We therefore hold that the fact that the complaint was so signed presents no federal question. This being the only ground for relief relied upon in the district court, we

Affirm.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Wiggans, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Connetics
Corporation;

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

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

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

a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 report based on such evaluation; and

c)      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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

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

b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 5, 2004


/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
------------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6606 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating 

to the statement of policy. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6606 RFS

1 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 

2 Section 1752(2) of the Export Control Reform Act 

3 of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4811(2)) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(H) To protect the trade secrets of the 

6 United States, its people, and its industrial 

7 base either related to items subject to control 

8 by the Secretary pursuant to this part or when 

9 the subject of economic espionage as described 

10 in section 1831 of title 18, United States 

11 Code.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32


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 Wilson Creek Mining Corp., (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Engin Yesil, President and Acting Chief Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, 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 Registrant





Dated:  February 24, 2011/s/ Engin YesilEngin YesilPresident and Acting Chief Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.