alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40794 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS DIAZ-SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1908-1

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luiz Diaz-Santana appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Diaz-Santana challenges the constitutionality § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Diaz-Santana contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. NewNo. 05-40794 -2- Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Diaz-Santana properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED.
Robert LEDBETTER and Angie Ledbetter v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

1150476

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
Nicole LUSTER-SHARPTON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Arthur SHARPTON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1446

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated October 11, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board
of Directors and Stockholders
  Perficient,
Inc.:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-89076, No. 333-42624, No. 333-100490,
No. 333-116549, No. 333-117216, No. 333-123177,
No. 333-129054, No. 333-138602, No. 333-142267,
No. 333-145899, No. 333-147687, No. 333-148978, and
No. 333-152274) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-42626, No. 333-44854,
No. 333-75666, No. 333-118839, No. 333-130624,
No. 333-147730, No. 333-157799, and No. 333-160465) on Form S-8
of Perficient, Inc. (the Company) of our report dated March 3, 2010, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which
report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of the
Company.
   /s/ KPMG
LLP
  St. Louis,
Missouri
 March 3,
2010
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 CannaPowder, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
September 30, 2019 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Shai
Cohen, 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) 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 Company.



|/s/
    Shai Cohen                                        | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Shai
    Cohen                                            | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) | 



Dated:
April 21, 2020



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CannaPowder, Inc. and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Keith Alexander, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 259]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 18, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant attended a benefits seminar at which one of the presenters inadvertently left her cell phone on a cabinet. When the presenter realized later in the day that her cell phone was missing, an investigation ensued, which ultimately resulted in claimant being discharged from employment for stealing the cell phone, making several calls (including long distance calls) and providing misleading information to investigators. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits due to disqualifying misconduct.

We affirm. “An employee’s apparent dishonesty . . . can constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Huggins [Samaritan Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor],*257 AD2d 877, 878 [1999] [citations omitted]). Here, the calls in question were linked to claimant, and testimony at the hearing established that he offered to reimburse the owner of the telephone for any charges incurred. Claimant’s denial that he was responsible for the theft of the cell phone presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Washington [Commissioner of Labor],*304 AD2d 896 [2003]). In view of the foregoing and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct *(see id.; Matter of Barrientos [Hudacs],*190 AD2d 926 [1993]).

*828Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and. Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Leslie Saiia, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 12]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered July 26, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by an icy condition in a playground owned and operated by defendant City, denied plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to produce a further witness for examination before trial and further documents for discovery and inspection, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct defendant to produce for deposition Crew Chief Kelly, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant should produce Crew Chief Kelly, who, according to the witness that defendant did produce, was probably present at the playground supervising snow removal on both the day before and day of the accident. While the witness produced by defendant was able to explain defendant’s records and, on the basis thereof, generally describe the snow removal techniques likely used in the playground where plaintiff fell, his lack of personal knowledge left open many material questions, including the condition of the path where plaintiff fell at the time defendant’s employees last undertook snow removal prior to the accident, the equipment they used and whether it was then snowing *(see Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 225*AD2d 412 [1996]; *Tucciarone v Windsor Owners Corp.,*306 AD2d 162*398[2003]). Plaintiffs motion was properly denied in all other respects. She has received the Crew Chief’s activity logs for the four-day period immediately prior to the accident, including the day of the accident. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the logs, which go back for a period of 17 days before the accident, would be relevant or useful *(see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406-407 [1968]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
498 A.2d 1182

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Joseph R. TYRRELL, Jr.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV), No. 3,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 21, 1985.

Kendall R. Calhoun, Asst. Bar Counsel, Annapolis (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Annapolis, on the petition), for petitioner.

Melvin G. Bergman, Lanham, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Arthur M. Ahalt, filed June 11, 1985, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland; and

Judge Ahalt having concluded that the respondent did not violate DR 1-102 by making certain misrepresentations to agents of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) concerning the ownership of certain stolen jewelry; and

Bar Counsel having filed exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Ahalt, including-the foregoing conclusion; and

This Court being of the opinion that additional findings of fact are required in order to decide all of the issues before this Court in the above-referenced matter, it is this 21st day of October, 1985.

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the case be, and it is hereby, remanded to Judge Arthur M. *295Ahalt in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for further proceedings and in order to make supplemental findings of fact on the following aspects of the case:

a. Inclusion in the record of a true copy of the complete policy of insurance issued by State Farm to the respondent under which respondent made claim for the loss by theft of certain jewelry of the estate of George John Diering, Jr.;

b. The amount in dollars of the loss to the Diering estate as of the date of the theft;

c. The extent, if any, to which State Farm has paid the loss on the Diering estate jewelry, identifying the specific items of jewelry on which loss payments have been made, the amount of payment allocated to each such item, the date of payment and the circumstances leading to the payment;

d. As to each item of Diering estate jewelry, if any, as to which State Farm has not paid the loss, the reasons for nonpayment; and

e. The efforts, if any, by respondent, to recover for the loss of the Diering estate jewelry under the State Farm policy, including any reasons for inaction.
Exhibit 23.2
                                                                    ------------

Consent of Independent Auditors

     We consent to the use of our report dated August 30, 2002, included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Switchboard Incorporated for the year ended
December 31, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, as
amended, included in this Form 10-K/A.

     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 August 30, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Switchboard Incorporated included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

September 18, 2002
Boston, Massachusetts
---

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 of Micromem Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.

|Date: February 26, 2010 | /s/ Dan Amadori               | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Dan Amadori                   | 
|                        | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|                        | (Principal financial officer) | 

---
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.10
















CONSENT OF PAUL ARCHER







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Paul Archer, participated in the preparation of the following technical reports entitled:




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, Summer 2011 Exploration Program, Lac Pau Project, Québec”, completed in March 2012; and




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, 2011 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Virginia Mines Inc. and Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd.”, completed in May 2012;




(collectively the “Reports”) concerning mineralized material in the Lac Pau and Payne Bay properties for the Company. Portions of the Reports are summarized, for the Lac Pau property, under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.5.4 Geological Setting; 3.5.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.5.6 Mineralization”; and for the Payne Bay property under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.7.4 Geological Setting; 3.7.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.7.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Paul Archer


	Name:  Paul Archer, M.Sc., P.Eng.



















May 14, 2012
#### Robin BOUEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY SERVICE UNIT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-11337-H

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed 08/09/2017

Robin Bouey, Pro Se

Jeffrey Slanker, Lisa Barclay Fountain, Robert Sniffen, Sniffen & Spellman, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WILSON, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES,

BY THE COURT:

To the extent that Appellant Robin Bouey’s March 9, 2017, “Amended Notice of Appeal” seeks to appeal from the underlying judgment, she has already appealed that order, we have already affirmed, and she is not entitled to two appeals of the same order. *See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,*449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); *United States v. Arlt,*567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978). In addition, Ms. Bouey’s amended notice of appeal is untimely to appeal from the district court’s post-judgment order entered on February 4, 2016, because it was filed outside the 30-day time period to appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, Appellee Orange County Service Unit’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (explaining that the courts cannot “create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements”). The Appellee’s motion to strike Ms. Bouey’s response to the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. The response is stricken as to pages 7 and 8 and the sealed transcript of the settlement conference, and the Clerk is directed to ensure that these items are removed from electronic public access. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                             VENDINGDATA CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steven J. Blad, President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
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/ Steven J. Blad                           Dated: November 14, 2002
       ----------------------------------
       Steven J. Blad
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
         and Treasurer


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

                                       21
#### Peter James LITTLE, AKA Peter Little, AKA Peter J. Little, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, named as: Charles Ryan, Director of A.D.C. at 1601 W. Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85007; Unknown Radecki, Mr./ Director or A.C.I. for A.D.C. at 1601 E. Jefferson St., Phoenix, AZ 85007, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-15690

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*495Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Field July 18, 2017

Robert A. Caplen, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Peter James Little appeals from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prison employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Little forfeited his opportunity to appeal the denial of his motions to amend because he did not file any objections to the magistrate judge’s orders. *See Bastidas v. Chappell,*791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd.,*351 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2003) (motion for leave to amend a complaint is a nondis-positive order).

Because we affirm, Little’s request to order reassignment to a different judge on remand, set forth in his replacement opening brief, is denied.

Little’s request to dismiss the portions of his appeal addressing entry of summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 60) is granted.

Little’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 60) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rajender SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70184

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai *&*Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

*392OIL, Yedidya Cohen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rajender Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, *Jiang v. Holder,*754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency as to whether Singh was arrested in India. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048-49.

Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions as to the IJ’s denial of his request for a change of venue, and his contention that he lacked competent interpretation. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*393ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.