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

No. 16-11655 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 14, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District-of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*295Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Gerardo Rodriguez-Trevino raises an argument that is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cír. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.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****99.5**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Lundin Mining Corporation (the “registrant”) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Colin K. Benner, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.

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

Dated: March 31, 2007

| /s/ Colin K. Benner     |
|-------------------------|
| Colin K. Benner         |
| Chief Executive Officer |

----

 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Lundin Mining Corporation (the “registrant”) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Anders Haker, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.

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

Dated: March 31, 2007
/s/ Anders HakerAnders HakerVice President and Chief      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7409

JAMES H. LESTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JERRY WILSON, Sheriff; DENNIS BRIDGEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-97-839-R)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James H. Lester, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip Richard Lingafelt,

GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising

jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 1998).

2

PER CURIAM:

James Lester appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.* We

have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the magistrate judge. See Lester v. Wilson, No. CA-97-839-R

(W.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund
L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
I, Michael L. Pungello, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 16, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### WINFREY *v.*FARHAT.

1. Judgment — Accelerated Judgment — Depositions.

Depositions may be submitted by either party to support or oppose a motion for accelerated judgment (GCR 1963, 116.3).

2. Same — Accelerated Judgment — Statute of Limitations.

Accelerated judgment for defendant in medical malpractice action *held,*properly granted, where the reco.rd on appeal contains uncontroverted facts which establish that plaintiff’s elaim was barred by the statute of limitations (CLS 1961, § 600.5805).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 41 Am Jur, Pleadings §§ 336, 342.

[2] 34 Am Jur, Limitation of Actions §§ 422, 423.

Appeal from Genesee, Freeman (Donald R.), J.

Submitted Division 2 May 9, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 3,606.)

Decided May 31, 1968.

Leave to appeal granted September 30, 1968.

See 381 Midi 780.

Complaint by Iva M. Winfrey and Lillard L. Winfrey against Maynard M. Farbat for medical malpractice. Accelerated judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*Howard G. Fisher,*for plaintiffs.

*Gline & Cline,*for defendant.

*580Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice cause of action was dismissed by accelerated judgment based on tbe fact that the statute of limitations* had run as to their claim. Plaintiffs appeal.

The deposition of the plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey was properly received, and considered under GfCÉ 1963, 116.3, which provides in part that affidavits as well as other evidence may be considered on the motion.

The record on appeal contains uncontroverted facts which establish that plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

*

 CLS 1961, § 600.5805 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5805).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MANU E L E DU AR DO AL ON S OOC HO A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10402 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - CR- 0 0 1 8 7 - RCJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M anuel E du ar do A l on so-O choa appeal s f rom the 24 -m on th sent ence i m pos e d f

ol l ow i ng the r e voc a t i on of hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU N 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10402 2 A l ons o- O c hoac ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byba s i ng i t s s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on on i m pe rm i s s i bl e f a c t or s . T he r e c or d s how s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not r e lyp r im a r ilyo n f

a c to r s th a t w e r e in ap p r o p r ia te f o rc o n s id e r a tio n . See U ni ted States v. Mi qb el , 4 4 4 F .3 d1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; se e al so U ni ted States v. Si m tob , 4 8 5 F .3 d1 0 5 8 , 1 0 6 2 - 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , in lig h t o f th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See U n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.5
















CONSENT OF CHRISTIAN D’AMOURS







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, Christian D’Amours, participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2003 (the “Technical Study”) concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under heading “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.2 Poste Lemoyne Property – 3.2.5 Exploration and Drilling” 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/  Christian D’Amours


	Name:  Christian D’Amours, Geologist



















May 14, 2012
#### Dexter HARMON Plaintiff-Appellant v. Leslie RUTLEDGE, Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Bourgon B. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Chris Piazza, Circuit Court Judge, Pulaski County; Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Arkansas Department of Correction, Trust Fund Centralized Banking; Vicki Rice, ADC Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3579

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 8, 2017

Filed: September 13, 2017

Dexter Harmon, Pro Se

William C. Bird, III, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Amber R. Schubert, Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas Community Correction, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Leslie Rutledge, Bourgon B. Reynolds, Wendy Kelley

William C. Bird, III, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-*479Appellees Chris Piazza, Arkansas Department of Correction, Vicki Rice

Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Dexter Harmon appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We previously-granted Harmon in forma pauperis status, affirmed the dismissals of claims against all but Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Bourgon Reynolds, and ordered briefing on those claims.

After careful *de novo*review, *see Cooper v. Schriro,*189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal for failure to state claim reviewed *de novo),*we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Reynolds was entitled to absolute immunity in the circumstances presented here. *See Murphy v. Morris,*849 F.2d 1101, 1104-05 (8th Cir. 1988) (articulating factors to be considered in deciding whether to extend absolute immunity to government attorney who was representing state defendant in prisoner civil rights lawsuit). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

        Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, Arthur Dubroff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Net2Phone, Inc.;

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 officer(s) 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 we 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 officer(s) 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: October 29, 2003

/s/  Arthur Dubroff
--------------------
Arthur Dubroff

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The numerators and denominators of basic and fully diluted earnings per share
are as follows:

                                                                   Period from
                                                                     Inception
                                          Year Ended       (March 18, 1999) to
                                    December 31,2000         December 31, 1999
                                    ----------------       -------------------
Net loss allocable
   to common
   (numerator)                         $(18,037,480)             ($16,084,535)
                                       =============             =============
Shares used in the
   calculation
   (denominator)
       Weighted average
            shares outstanding                  100                       100
         Effect of diluted
            stock options                       --                        --
         Fully diluted shares                   100                       100

Basic net loss per share                 $ (180,375)               $ (160,845)
                                         ===========               ===========
Fully diluted net loss
     per share                           $ (180,375)               $ (160,845)
                                         ===========               ===========
EXHIBIT 23


                               [GRAPHIC OMITTED]
                                DIXON ODOM PLLC
                  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND CONSULTANTS


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-83875) of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. of
our report dated October 18, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial
condition of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30,
2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 2002, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc.

/s/ Dixon Odom PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
December 23, 2002
#### Ranbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73060

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

James Eric Price, Esquire, L.A. Immigration Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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

*395Before: 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 **

Ranbir Singh, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the, Convention Against ■ Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.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 review de novo questions of law, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Singh contends he will be persecuted based on country conditions for Indo-Fiji-ans, and based on Singh’s and his family’s past experiences in Fiji. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted. *See Halim v. Holder,*590 F.3d 971, 975-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (although petitioner was discriminated, against and harassed, he failed to make a compelling showing that his fear was objectively reasonable); *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution “too speculative”); *see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency rationally construed country report). We reject as without merit Singh’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis. Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contention that the IJ erred in his interpretation of what constitutes persecution because he did not raise this issue to' the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, Singh does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. *See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                       |  | 
|---------------------- |  | 
|Date:  August 13, 2003 |  | 
|                       |  | 



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.