alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn La Velle ROLLINS, Defendant-Appellant. The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Amicus Curiae.

No. 15-1459

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 27, 2017

Robert Mark Russel, Karl L. Schock, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kyle W. Brenton, Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq., Davis Graham *&*Stubbs, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Shawn La Velle Rollins, Pro Se

Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Amicus Curiae The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter comes on for consideration of the government’s *Unopposed Motion for Summary*Affirmance, in which the government moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s sentencing determination in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Defendant Shawn La Velle Rollins does not oppose the motion.

*688Upon consideration thereof, the motion is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Eric FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; C. Landis, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-20459

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Eric Flores, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves this court for authorization to proceed in .forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Noting that Flores had an unpaid monetary sanction in the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 9:15-cv-0060, the district court dismissed Flores’s complaint without prejudice to refiling after he paid the outstanding monetary sanction and obtained permission from the court to proceed with his litigation. The district court also denied Flores’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Flores’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). A movant for leave to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal presents nonfrivolous issues. *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Flores fails to provide any financial documentation establishing that he is a pauper and eligible to proceed IFP. *See*§ 1915(a); *Carson,*689 F.2d at 586. Furthermore, Flores’s argument challenging the district court’s determination that he has an outstanding monetary sanction is conclusory and nonsensical. Specifically, Flores asserts that the district court judge, Lee H. Rosenthal, falsified documentation regarding the monetary sanction in order to prevent him from filing additional legal claims. Flores further asserts that the Judge Rosenthal is not a legitimate judge since he was neither appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate. Flores also asserts the bizarre claim that he is in imminent danger of death because unidentified prison officials have executed him by electric chair and have utilized deadly technology to cause him severe mental pain. Flores’s bizarre, conclusory, and nonsensical claims fail to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. *See Gelabert v. Lynaugh,*894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990); *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, Flores’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Flores is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. Flores is DIRECTED to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that *135are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

*

 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.
#### Merrill Preston HARRIS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 23779.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., T. T. Turn-bull, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On conflicting testimony the district court, in a hearing upon a petition for habeas corpus seeking relief from a state court conviction, held that there was no denial of any Constitutional right of the appellant. The Escobedo [Escobedo v. People of State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977] and Miranda [Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694] doctrines were invoked. The trial commenced prior to the Escobedo decision and hence the principles announced there and in Miranda are inapplicable. The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Raymond A. Morgan, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, against Holton V. Noyes, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued March 10, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*738
      *Thomas M. Nichols*for appellant.

*Robert I. Millonzi*and *Milo R. Kniffen*for Holton V. Noyes, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, respondent.

*Frank B. Lent, Hampton H. Halsey*and *Robert Lamont for*Rochester Co-operative Milk Producers’ Bargaining Agency, Inc., et al., intervening respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### Michael MANIGAULT, Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-1851

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

Zachary Stolz, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, Providence, RI, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by Robert Vincent Chisholm, Jenna Zellmer.

Amanda Tantum, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Martin F. Hockey, Jr.; Y. Ken Lee, Bryan Thompson, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

(Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio VITERBO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10485

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 2, 2017

Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maurilio Viterbo-Garcia, Pro Se

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maurilio Viterbo-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Viterbo-Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Viter-bo-Garcia the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 846, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended April 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Baldwin,the Chief Financial Officer of Morton’s, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(i) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Morton’s.

 

Date: May 17, 2004

 
|   | /s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas J. Baldwin       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04424]



[[Page 12182]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Office of Research Infrastructure Programs 
(ORIP) Special Emphasis Panel: Applications for Scientific 
Conferences.
    Date: April 6, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kenneth Ryan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3218, MSC 7717, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
0229, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a111f14141f0e125408031b143a14131254121209541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3b8b6bdbdb6a7bbfda1aab2bd93bdbabbfdbbbba0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04424 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Antonio AYALA-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40171 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

*315John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shane John Stolarczyk, Esq., Keller Sto-larczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Pedro Antonio Ayala-Ayala, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges!

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Pedro Antonio Ayala-Ayala appeals the 24-month term of imprisonment imposed by the district court on revocation of his supervised release. During the pendency of this appeal, Ayala-Ayala completed his revocation sentence and was released from custody. Because the district court did not impose an additional term of supervised release, the instant appeal is moot. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

Accordingly, Ayala-Ayala’s appeal is DISMISSED as. moot.

*

 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

November 20, 2019

b1113 

# Order

Clerk November 20, 2019

159038

AUTO

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

HOME

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

and CALEB CASANOVA,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 159038

COA: 339799

Ingham CC: 16

- 000870

- CK

COMPASS HEALTHCARE PLC d/b/a COMPASS

HEALTH, and LANSING NEUROSURGERY,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should 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 Annual Report of RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
      W. Matre, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      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/David
                W. MatreDavid
                W. Matre
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              March
                3, 2008
#### The People, Resp’ts, *v.*Schihick Jugigo alias Schiburga Jugigo, App’lt.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 9, 1891.)*

Appeal—Frivolous motions por reargument.

The forms of law should not be used to subvert the criminal law of the state, and attorneys and counsellors cannot, consistently with their duty to aid in the administration of justice, engage in vexatious proceedings merely for the purpose of undermining the final judgments of the courts and defeating the behests of the law*

Motion for reargument

*John P. Heinzelman,*for app’lt; *McKenzie Semple,*for resp’ts.

1

 See 33 N. Y State Rep., 580.

Per Curiam.

In December, 1889, the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. He appealed to this court and his case was argued in June, 1890, a few days before the summer recess. The judgment was here affirmed October 7, 1890, and the following opinion was then written: “ The record does not contain a single exception, and we are unable to perceive any reason for bringing the appeal except to delay the execution of the judgment. The evidence established beyond any doubt the commission of the crime, and the charge of the judge was fair and properly instructed the jury upon the law needful for their guidance. There can be no pretense for saying that the ends of justice require a,new trial, and the judgment should be affirmed.”

*747The subsequent proceedings in the case on behalf of the defendant have been discreditable to the. administration of justice. His case has been twice to the supreme court of the United States, and is now here for the third time, and thus the courts have been needlessly vexed for no possible purpose except delay.

Upon this occasion a motion is made for a reargument of the case after a lapse of nearly a year from the original argument, upon pretext manifestly frivolous, and for which there can be no possible excuse or justification, and which will not now be dignified by any further notice.

When all the forms of law have been observed and the. defendant has had every opportunity to make his defense and his conviction has been affirmed by the highest court of the state, the contest in the courts should end, and the final judgment should be executed, unless the governor of the state, in the exercise of his clemency, should grant a reprieve or a pardon. The forms of law should- not be used to subvert the criminal law of the state.

Attorneys and counsellors admitted to practice in the courts of this state are under a duty, to aid in the administration of justice, and they cannot, consistently with this duty, engage in vexatious proceedings merely for the purpose of undermining the final judgments of the courts and defeating the behests of. the law. It ought to be a subject of enquiry, therefore, whether they can thus become the allies of criminal classes gnd the foes of organized society without exposing themselves to the disciplinary power’s of the court.

The motion is denied.

All concur.
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**







We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
      No. 333-145256 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 15, 2008,
      relating to the financial statements of Cyberdefender Corporation (which report
      expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
      to the substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going
      concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cyberdefender
      Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.







KMJ Corbin & Company
              LLP






Irvine,
      California


April
      15,
      2008
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Paul C. White, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of deltathree,
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 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 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 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: December 1, 2003                          /s/ Paul C. White
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Name:  Paul C. White
                                                Title:  Chief Financial Officer