alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC.,

KYDDLF & RDLFGFT NO. 1, LLC.,

AND RANCHO VISTA DEL MAR, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

______________________ 

2012-5066

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 09-CV-691, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROGER J. MARZULLA, Marzulla Law, LLC, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the 

brief was NANCIE G. MARZULLA. 

CORINNE A. NIOSI, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellant. With her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and BRYANT G. SNEE, Deputy Director. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND CONSIDERED, IT IS

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, SCHALL, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 

January 28, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
#### John Thomas LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6695

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 9, 2017

John Thomas Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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 Atlas America Series 27-2006 L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, 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 Partnership. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| August 14, 2014                                |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50773

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: WCL, INC.,

Debtor.

HUDSPETH COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellant,

versus

WCL, INC.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

EP-94-CV-382

May 29, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hudspeth County Appraisal District appeals to this court the district court’s order

dismissing, and declining to reconsider, its appeal of the bankruptcy court’s rejection of its

claimin the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of WCL, Inc. Having reviewed the pertinent parts of the

record and briefs of counsel, and finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, on the basis

of the facts as found, authorities cited, and scholarly analysis of the district court in its
2

comprehensive and thorough Order Dismissing Appeals, signed and entered September 19,

1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
## Mav.31. 2013 12:32PM

## Port.-·~ 

# ofSeattle

March 31,2013

Ms. 

### Nancy Kalinowski Vice President System OperationS Services (AJR.-0) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591


### Re:**FAA-2013~0392,** ''Notice for 

### Data and Information DistributionPolicy" 

### Dear Ms. Kalinowski: 

## No. 

## 3 811 

## P. 2 Seattle-Tacoma · lnlemallonal Airport P.O. Box 68727 Seattle, WA 98168 Tel: (206) 433-5388 FaK: (206) 431-5912 www.portseatlle.org

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

### is pleased to submit the following comments and requests for clarification regarding Federal RegisterNotice FAA-2013-0392, ''Notice for Data and InformationDistribution Policy" (the Notice), which was published in the Federal Register on 

### May 1) 2013, Specifically related to item number 7: a) What process orprocedures would an airport needto complete, 

### in orderfor the FAAto "consider", and then approve, a direct connect data feed? b) Howmuch 

### will it cost an airport 

### (payable to

### the FAA) to establish and maintain a duect connect data feed? · 

### Seattle-Tacoma 

### International Airport appreciates this opportunity to submit comments regarding Federal Register Notice FAA-2013-0392. Hyou have any questions, please contact me viaemail at Kikillus.r@portseattle.org, orphone 206-787-6626

.



### Robert H. 

### ·killus, A.A.E. Airport Operations Manager Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 206-787-6626
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

        Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
     Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                          2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

     The undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the Quarter
          Ended December 31, 2001 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

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

                                          /s/ Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                          Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 12, 2002

                                       42
AIR-09-298-E

August 25, 2010

Exem ption No. 10121 Regul atory Docket No. FAA-2009-0591

Mr. Raphael Celier

President

Celier Aviation Nowowiejskiego 26a

96313 Jaktorow-Kolonia

Poland

Dear Mr. Celier:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied yo ur petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 15, 2009, you petitioned the F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Celier Aviation for an exemption from §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Celier Aviation to produce and sell gyroplanes for certification under § 21.191(i) without previously having manufactured and assembled a gyro plane of the same make and model that has been issued a special airworthiness certificate d in the light-sport category under § 21.190.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for n ot publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register

because the requested exemption would not set a pr ecedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detriment al to Celier Aviation.

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in ci rcumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In D enial of Exemption No. 10099 (copy enclosed), the FAA did not believe it is in the pub lic interest to permit a manufacturer to sell a make and model of gyroplane (or aircraft kit), elig ible for the issuance of an experimental certificate in the light-sport category, if that ma nufacturer has not yet produced a gyroplane of that make and model that meets the accepted consens us standards.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exem ption, I find that—

• they don’t differ materially from those presented b y the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclo sed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public int erest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 an d 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition Ce lier Aviation for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1).

Sincerely,

/s/

K.C. Yanamura Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
#### Brandon Michael PICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Robeson County; Brad Perritt; James McRae; Mary Locklear; Jacqueline Smith; Joy Davis; T. Graham; E. Lechliter; Mr. Bullard; Pam Callahan; Nina Seals; Davy Bullard; Laron Locklear; W. Parrish; John Does 1, 2; Melba Web*283ster; Jane Doe; NCPLS; IDS Legal Contractor; North Carolina General Assembly; Erika Ransom, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6993

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Michael Pickens appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Pickens v. Perry,*No. 5:16-ct-03189-BO (E.D.N.C. May 18 & Sept. 15, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**Wilshire Credit Corporation****Payments**P.O. Box 30040; Los Angeles, CA  90030-0040 or   P.O. Box 650314; Dallas, TX  75265-0314 **Correspondence**P.O. Box 8517; Portland, OR  97207-8517 **Phone**(503) 952-7947 (888) 502-0100 **Fax**(503) 952-7476 **Web Site**www.wfsg.com Exhibit 35 Exhibit T CERTIFICATION OF SERVICER March 1, 2007 Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. 250 Vesey Street 4 World Financial Center, 10th Floor New York, New York  10080 U.S. Bank National Association 60 Livingston Avenue Mail Code EP-MN-WS3D St. Paul, Minnesota 55107-2292 Attn: Structured Finance/SURF 2006-BC5 Re: Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as November 1, 2006 among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as Depositor, Wilshire Credit Corporation, as Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, relating to Special Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-BC5, Pool 1413 I, Ken Frye, Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing of Wilshire Credit Corporation (the "Servicer"), hereby certify that: i.A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Servicer under this Agreement has been made under my supervision, and ii.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof, or if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such failure known to me and the nature and status thereof. Wilshire Credit Corporation, as Servicer By: _/s/__Ken Frye_____________ Name: Ken Frye Title: Senior Vice President Loan Servicing
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00104-CR

Walter Lee Washington III

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22427

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2021
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
undersigned, Jeffrey Sternberg, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Trilliant Exploration Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
Trilliant Exploration Corporation for fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Trilliant Exploration
Corporation.








Date: April
16, 2010





/s/  
      "Jeffrey Sternberg"Jeffrey
      Sternberg
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer





/s/  
      "Jeffrey Sternberg"Jeffrey
      Sternberg
              Chief
      Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Trilliant Exploration Corporation and will
be retained by American Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50381

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*712Submitted July 13, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joel Espinoza, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joel Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Espinoza has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

However, the judgment does not accurately reflect the statute of conviction. We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that the conviction is for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding, sua sponte to correct the judgment).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 869

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

DRAGONESSA, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

5 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

6 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

7 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code,

8 the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of
2

•S 869 IS

1 documentation with appropriate endorsement for employ2 ment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

3 DRAGONESSA, United States official number 646512.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 962

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994

until August 15, 1995.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered,

read the third time, and passed

A BILL

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace

Facilitation Act of 1994 until August 15, 1995.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

4 Section 583 of the Foreign Relations Authorization

5 Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236)

6 is amended by striking ‘‘July 1, 1995’’ and inserting in

7 lieu thereof ‘‘August 15, 1995’’.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 902

To amend Public Law 100–479 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to assist in the construction of a building to be used jointly by the

Secretary for park purposes and by the city of Natchez as an intermodal

transportation center, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend Public Law 100–479 to authorize the Secretary

of the Interior to assist in the construction of a building

to be used jointly by the Secretary for park purposes

and by the city of Natchez as an intermodal transportation center, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. NATCHEZ NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

4 Section 3 of the Act of October 8, 1988, entitled ‘‘An

5 Act to create a national park at Natchez, Mississippi’’ (16

6 U.S.C. 410oo et seq.), is amended—
2

•S 902 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ after

2 ‘‘SEC. 3.’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(b) BUILDING FOR JOINT USE BY THE SECRETARY

5 AND THE CITY OF NATCHEZ.—

6 ‘‘(1) CONTRIBUTION TOWARD CONSTRUC7 TION.—The Secretary enter into an agreement with

8 the city of Natchez under which the Secretary agrees

9 to pay not to exceed $2,500,000 toward the planning

10 and construction by the city of Natchez of a struc11 ture to be used—

12 ‘‘(A) by the Secretary as an administrative

13 headquarters, administrative site, and visitors’

14 center for Natchez National Historical Park;

15 and

16 ‘‘(B) by the city as an intermodal trans17 portation center.

18 ‘‘(2) USE FOR SATISFACTION OF MATCHING RE19 QUIREMENTS.—The amount of payment under para20 graph (1) may be available for matching Federal

21 grants authorized under other law notwithstanding

22 any limitations in any such law.

23 ‘‘(3) AGREEMENT.—Prior to the execution of

24 an agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary

25 shall enter into a contract, lease, cooperative agree-
3

•S 902 IS

1 ment, or other appropriate form of agreement with

2 the city of Natchez providing for the use and occu3 pancy of a portion of the structure constructed

4 under paragraph (1) (including appropriate use of

5 the land on which it is situated), at no cost to the

6 Secretary (except maintenance, utility, and other

7 operational costs), for a period of 50 years, with an

8 option for renewal by the Secretary for an additional

9 50 years.

10 ‘‘(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

11 There is authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000

12 to carry out this subsection.’’.

Æ