alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEMARIO ANTWAIN HOPKINS, a/k/a Mario, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-37-5-6-FO, CA-01-194-5-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demario Antwain Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Demario Antwain Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hopkins , Nos. CR-98-37-5-6- FO; CA-01-194-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINIQUE RAQUEIM BAINES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 576 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of March, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Sabrina A. WAGONER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3954

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2017

Filed: July 11, 2017

*327Matthew J. Keteham, Noland *&*Caddell, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Fatima Shah, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sabrina A. Wagoner appeals the district court’s1 order affirming an unfavorable decision on her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016), we agree with the district court that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) weighing of the physician-opinion evidence on Ms. Wagoner’s residual functional capacity (RFC), see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC determination must be based on all relevant evidence—medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations—and must be supported by some medical evidence); Johnson v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2011) (form consisting of series of check marks assessing RFC, which is determination for ALJ to make, amounts to conelusory opinion that may be discounted if contradicted by other objective medical evidence); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, opinion is not considered substantial evidence). Because the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the first hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings, see Gieseke v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014), we find no merit to Ms. Wagoner’s argument concerning the VE’s testimony. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ElixirGaming Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clarence Chung,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andy Tsui, VicePresident Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |   | /s/ Clarence Chung                    |   | Dated: | August 14, 2009 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   |   | Clarence Chung                        |   |   |                 |
| Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |                 |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |                 |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |                 |
| By:    |   | /s/ Andy Tsui                         |   | Dated: | August 14, 2009 |
|   |   | Andy Tsui                             |   |   |                 |
| Title: |   | Chief Accounting Officer              |   |   |                 |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard containedtherein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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 filing of Amendment No. 2 to
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report") by Apex Capital Group, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Dempsey K. Mork,
hereby certify that:

1. To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



Dated:  October 26, 2006

                                  By:        /s/ Dempsey K. Mork
                                             -----------------------
                                  Name:      Dempsey K. Mork
                                  Title:     Chief Executive Officer
#### MARTIN SHUBERT v. THE STATE.

Appeal from Hays county.

*Construction*— Willful.—The word “willful” when used in a penal statute means more than it does in common parlance. It means with “evil intent” or legal malice. In this case defendant had built a dam across a stream, and the water of the stream, being obstructed by the dam, backed up and rendered a crossing on a public road inconvenient and dangerous. Held, such an act does not justify a conviction for “willfully obstructing a public road.” Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

White, P. J.
#### Juan Carlos BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General Respondent.

No. 16-70938

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 4, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed May 8, 2017

Nancy Canter, Trial Attorney, OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial Attorney, Jesi J. Carlson, 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: PLAGER,* BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable S. Jay Plager, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Beltran petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal due to waiver. Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion, Beltran argues that his waiver was not considered and intelligent. As explained below, we agree and therefore grant the petition and remand.

We review legal issues de novo. *See Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey,*534 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount them here.

The waiver of an appeal is not valid if it is not considered and intelligent. *See, e.g., Garcia v. Lynch,*786 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The standard requires that the immigration judge (“IJ”) inform the alien of his or her apparent eligibility to apply for any benefits, including the availability of voluntary departure and the differences between pre-conclusion and post-conclusion voluntary departure. *See id.;*8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2).

In this instance, Beltran’s waiver was not considered and intelligent because the IJ failed to explain the differences between pre-conclusion and post-conclusion voluntary departure. Beltran’s waiver was therefore invalid, and the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal on the basis of waiv*567er. We remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Beltran’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. J. Jesus JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11392 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assis*243tant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J. Jesus Jaimes appeals the 36-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Assuming he preserved this argument in the district court, we review it for abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Jaimes argues that the district court failed to take into account any 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors other than those involving his prior criminal and deportation history. Additionally, he contends that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight when it failed to discuss whether his legal residency in the United States for 26 years and his reasons for returning to the United States affected his sentence. He also contends that the degree of the departure from his 15-to-21-month .Guidelines range was unreasonable.

Jaimes has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in varying upwardly from the Guidelines range. The record supports a determination that the district court had an adequate basis for the sentence imposed and was guided by the Section 3553(a) factors in determining that an upward variance was justified. The district court stated that it had considered multiple Section 3553(a) factors. Jaimes’s criminal history is a factor that a court may consider in deciding whether to impose a non-Guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no requirement that any aspect of a defendant’s personal history and circumstances be afforded disposi-tive weight. *See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Jaimes’s challenge to how the district court chose to weigh specific factors does not show that the district court erred. *See Gall,*522 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Additionally, his sentence, which was 15 months above the top of the applicable advisory Guidelines range, was not so disproportionate as to overcome the factors that warranted its imposition. *See United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          45,863
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          47,491
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,915
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    541,852
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         116,532
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           118,389
<LOANS>                                      1,310,965
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,197,891
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,634,046
<SHORT-TERM>                                   204,460
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,742
<LONG-TERM>                                    147,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,411
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,197,891
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,259
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,418
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 7,930
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,607
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,070
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,537
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 18,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,723
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,723
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.22
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,770
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,505
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,589
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      806
<RECOVERIES>                                       160
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,943
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,943
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23.1**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
        consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Tasker Products Corp.
        on
        Form S-8 (Registration Statement No. 333-135903 and 333-121054) of our report,
        which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to
        continue as a going concern dated March 19, 2007, relating to the consolidated
        balance sheets of Tasker Products Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
        2006
        and 2005, 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, 2006







/s/
                Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.








Roseland,
      New Jersey


April
      2,
      2007
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o . 1 0

- 1 0 7 3 5 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v . S A N T O S R I O S

- N O L A S C O , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o . 2 : 1 0

- C R

- 1 5

- 1

B e f o r e K I N G , B E N A V I D E S , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s . ` P E R C U R I A M : * S a n t o s R i o s - N o l a s c o a p p e a l s f r o m t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d f o l l o w i n g h i s g u i l t y p l e a c o n v i c t i o n f o r i l l e g a l r e e n t r y a f

t e r d e p o r t a t i o n . H e a r g u e s t h a t h i s

s e n t e n c e v i o l a t e s t h e C r u e l a n d U n u s u a l P u n i s h m e n t C l a u s e o f t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e i t w a s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l a s t o h i s c o n d u c t u n d e r l y i n g t h e

o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . A 5 7

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r a f i r s t i l l e g a l r e e n t r y o f f e n s e b y
a d e f e n d a n t w i t h a p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f i l l e g a l a l i e n s i s

n o t g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e c r i m e . S e e R u m m e l v . E s t e l l e , 4 4 5 U

. S

. 2 6 3 , U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 11 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10735 Document: 00511441047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2011N o . 1 0

- 1 0 7 3 5

2 8 4

- 8 5 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C a r d e n a s - A l v a r e z , 9 8 7 F

. 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 4 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 )

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t i s A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 10-10735 Document: 00511441047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2011
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 on Form 10-K of BRIGHTCUBE, INC. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Brightcube, Inc., 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 results of operations of the Company.








Dated: March 31, 2010





/s/Michael Manion





Michael Manion


Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Michael Manion


Michael Manion


Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Company's 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             31
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                       35
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              5
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         2,155
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,967
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  104
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      26
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     2
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE
30, 2000.


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   133
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                        56,723
<OTHER-SE>                                    (309,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.010)



</TABLE>