alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Samuel WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant v. M. D. CARVAJAL, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Pollock, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-30322 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 9, 2017

Samuel Wallace, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Samuel Wallace, federal prisoner # 21263-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Wallace sought to challenge the sentence imposed following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He contends that he should have been permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its determination of issues of law de novo. *Wilson v. Roy,*643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his sentence must file a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” *Id.*at 452.

However, under § 2255(e), the so-called “savings clause,” a federal prisoner may attack the legality of his sentence in a § 2241 petition if he establishes that no adequate or effective relief is attainable by motion under § 2255. *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) To satisfy § 2255(e)’s “savings clause,'” Wallace was required to make an affirmative showing that [he] would present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” *Id.*at 904.

Wallace did not make the. requisite showing, and his reliance on *Persaud v. United States,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1023, 188 L.Ed.2d 117 (2014) (mem.), is *301unavailing. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 16, 2022.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas*                     (Karen Smith, Director, Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *The MES 2022 Trust and Marvin Edward Singleton, IV, individually, and as trustee, both of Waxahachie, Texas;*                     to join the Marvin Edward Singleton, III Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Citizens National Bank of Texas, both of Waxahachie, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 25, 2022.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-04395 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, W. King Grant,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gasco
Energy,  Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby certify that the  accompanying  report on
Form 10K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 and filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  pursuant to Section  13(a) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the  "Report") by the Company  fully  complies
with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material aspects,  the financial  operations and results of operations of
the Company.




                                     /s/ W. King Grant
                                     ----------------------------------
                                    Name:  W. King Grant
                                    Date:    August 2, 2002
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03517

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### Ronald Jerome LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALVARADO, Officer; Lepe, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16825

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Ronald Jerome Lawson, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORÁNDUM ***

Ronald Jerome Lawson, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lawson’s failure-to-protect claim against defendants Alvarado and Lepe because Lawson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Alvarado or Lepe was deliberately indifferent to Lawson’s safety by placing and keeping him in a cell with inmate Brown. *See Cortes v. Skol,*776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a claim against prison officials for failure-to-protect inmates from violence by other inmates); *see also Van Strum v. Lawn,*940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) *(Bivens*actions are identical to actions under 42'U.S.C. § 1983 “save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under *Bivens”).*

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lawson’s third amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be fu*535tile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where ... amendment would be futile”); *see also Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Lawson’s contention that the district court was required to permit Lawson to stand on an earlier complaint after he filed an amended complaint.

We do not consider allegations not pled in the third amended complaint because Lawson elected not to stand on his earlier complaint.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Anne B. SCHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16700.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1966.

Anne B. Schafer, in pro. per.

Harold D. Beaton, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and TAYLOR, District Judge.*

*

 Robert L. Taylor, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was awarded disability insurance benefits under Section 223 of the Social Security Act, as amended, for a period commencing on and after September 30, 1959. She contends that benefits should also have been awarded for a period commencing prior thereto, namely, on July 16, 1949, on which date she sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident. She did not file an application for the establishment of a period of disability until June 23, 1960. In her application she alleged that the date of the onset of her disability was March 28, 1951.

Appellant had a full hearing before the hearing examiner at which testimony and documentary evidence was offered. The injury which appellant sustained healed well from an organic standpoint and did not substantially interfere with the operation of her insurance business which she conducted gainfully until she *569sold it, partially in 1960 and the remainder in 1961. However, she was troubled with nervousness and emotional difficulty which became progressively worse over the years, and was diagnosed in 1959 and 1960 as severe psychoneurosis.

The Secretary relied on evidence of appellant’s combined organic and functional disorders in deciding that she was entitled to the establishment of a period of disability and an award of disability insurance benefits, and in fixing the date as September 30, 1959. Her claim for a period of disability prior to September 30,1959 was denied by the Secretary.

In our judgment, there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Secretary and the District Court did not err in affirming it or in denying the motion to remand.

There is a question whether retroactive relief may be granted prior to 1959 because of the restriction provided in Section 223(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(b). This point has not been raised by the Secretary and we do not pass upon it.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 3.94

                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                PHYSICIAN INTEGRATION CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

                                       I.

     The name of the corporation is: Physician Integration Consulting Services,
Inc.

                                      II.

     The purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity
for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of
California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the
practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California
Corporations Code.

                                      III.

     The name and address in the State of California of this corporation's
initial agent for service of process is:

                               Lesley A. Allison
                                3626 Ruffin Road
                        San Diego, California 92138-2807

                                      IV.

     The corporation is authorized to provide indemnification of agents (as
defined in Section 317 of the Corporations Code) for breach of duty to the
corporation and its stockholders through bylaw provisions or through agreements
with the agents, or both in excess of the indemnification otherwise permitted by
Section 317 of the Corporations Code, subject to the limits on such excess
indemnification set forth in Section 204 of the Corporations Code.

                                       V.

     This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock
and the total number of shares which is corporation is authorized to issue is
100,000,000.

     DATED: August 2, 1993.

                                                         /s/ Joshua Weinman
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Joshua Weinman, Incorporator
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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 three months ended June 30, 2004 (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.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez   
|                      |  | Fernando Sanchez       
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation 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 RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard F. Beston, Jr., 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/ Richard F. Beston, Jr.



Richard F. Beston, Jr.

Principal Executive Officer

March  22, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof American Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Icertify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

A signed original of this written statement, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not bedeemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 
| Date:  September 14,  2009 |   | /s/  Victor J. Salerno                               |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   | Victor  J. Salerno                                   |
|                                      |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating |
|                                      |   | Officer,  and Chairman of the Board of Directors     |
|                                      |   |                                                 |
|                                      |   |                                                 |
|                                      |   | /s/  Melody J. Sullivan                              |
|                                      |   | Melody  J. Sullivan                                  |
|                                      |   | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer               |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Aloysius RZEWNICKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10131

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed July 28, 2017

Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Offíce of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Robert Kilburn, Kilburn Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Rzewnicki appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. The motion was based on his claim that he reasonably believed that the order discharging him from probation on the predicate felony conviction had restored his right to possess firearms, and that the indictment therefore violated the “anti-mousetrapping” rule of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).

Rzewnicki argued that he was a first offender as defined by Arizona law and thus was statutorily entitled to automatic restoration of his civil rights upon discharge from probation. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-912(A). Rzewnicki’s 2005 conviction involved three separate felony counts. Under controlling Arizona authority, the automatic restoration provision of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-912(A) applies only to offenders who have been convicted of a single felony. *Rocking K Holdings, Ltd. v. Pima County,*170 Ariz. 134, 822 P.2d 487, 489 (Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive 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 September 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.



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: November 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 67 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 67

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow the pooling of 
           tips among all employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow the pooling of 
           tips among all employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Flexibility Act''.

SEC. 2. TIP POOLING.

    Section 3(m)(2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 
203(m)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``employees who 
        customarily and regularly receive tips'' and inserting ``pools 
        of employees described in subparagraph (C)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(C) The pools of employees described in this subparagraph are as 
follows:
            ``(i) Employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.
            ``(ii) Employees who--
                    ``(I) customarily and regularly receive tips and 
                receive a cash wage paid by the employer that is not 
                less than the wage in effect under section 6(a)(1); and
                    ``(II) do not customarily and regularly receive 
                tips.''.
                                 <all>
```