alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Earl WRONE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8817.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 7, 1966.

*170Donald F. Medsker, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

John W. Raley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT and HICKEY, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Wrone, represented by retained counsel, entered a plea of nolo contendere in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to a 6-count indictment charging him with violation of United States statutes relating to the possession and sale of narcotics. He was given a ten year sentence on each count, to run concurrently, and is now serving the sentence in the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the judgment and sentence, it is alleged that the plea was induced by threats that perjured testimony would be used to obtain a conviction, that a maximum sentence would be imposed if Wrone were convicted on trial, and by representations by appellant’s attorney that the presiding judge had agreed that the sentence would not exceed five years on a plea of nolo contendere. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

 After consideration of conflicting evidence, the trial court found against appellant on all the issues. It is conceded here that the findings of the trial court on issues of fact are not reviewable, but it is contended that Wrone was denied a constitutional hearing on his motion because the district judge, who is alleged to have indicated that the sentence would not be more than five years on a plea of nolo contendere, sat in judgment on his own conduct. This contention cannot be sustained because the record is devoid of any evidence that the judge discussed the sentence with Wrone’s attorney or anyone else. The extent of the testimony of Wrone and his wife was that the attorney had “inferred” that the sentence would not exceed five years. Furthermore, Section 2255 provides that a prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence in “the court which imposed the sentence -x- * in Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 775, 777, cert. denied 365 U.S. 853, 81 S.Ct. 818, 5 L.Ed.2d 816, reh. denied 366 U.S. 915, 81 S.Ct. 1088, 6 L.Ed.2d 239, this court said:

> “No doubt the prime purpose of § 2255 was to provide a method whereby the validity of a sentence would be determined by the court which imposed the sentence rather than by a court in the district where the defendant was confined. The desirability of such procedure is apparent. The sentencing court is familiar with the case. The court in the district of confinement is unfamiliar with cases in which sentences have been imposed by other courts. The production of files, records, and witnesses is more convenient in the sentencing court. The court which heard the case and gave judgment thereon should have the opportunity and responsibility of hearing and determining attacks against the judgment.”

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
  CERTIFICATION
  
  I, Daniel McKinney, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sino Fibre
  Communications, Inc., certify that;
  (1)
  I have
  reviewed this report on Form 10-K for the year ended
  December 31, 2008 of Sino Fibre Communications, 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 have:
  (a)
  designed such
  disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
  procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
  information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
  particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)
  evaluated the
  effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
  presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
  disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
  this report based on such evaluation; and
  (c)
  disclosed in
  this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
  reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter
  (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
  has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
  registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
  (5)
  The
  registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
  most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to
  the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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: April 16, 2009
  /s/ Daniel McKinney 
  Daniel McKinney 
  President and Chief Executive Officer 
  (Principal Accounting Officer)


---
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          For the Nine Months Ended
                                                                  April 30
                                                                  --------
                                                          2001                2000
                                                    -----------------   ------------------


<S>                                                     <C>               <C>
Shares outstanding                                      6,630,091         6,416,939
                                                      ------------      -------------

Weighted average shares outstanding                     6,298,590         5,438,450
Stock Options                                           1,412,675         1,357,178
Warrants                                                1,797,500         1,798,125
                                                       ----------        ----------
  Total weighted average shares outstanding             9,508,765         8,593,753
                                                       ==========        ==========


Net income (loss)                                     $(1,484,415)       $ (914,427)

Cumulative effect of change
  in accounting principle                                       -            79,896
                                                      ------------       ----------

Net income (loss)                                     $(1,484,415)       $ (834,531)
                                                     =============       ===========

Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share
  Net income (loss) per common share before
    change in accounting principle                        $ (0.24)          $ (0.17)
  Cumulative effect of change
    in accounting principle                                     -              0.02
                                                         ---------         --------
  Net income (loss) per common share                      $ (0.24)          $ (0.15)
                                                         =========         ========

Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share
  Net income (loss) per common share before change        $ (0.24)          $ (0.16)
      in accounting principal
  Cumulative effect of change
      in accounting principle                                   -              0.01
                                                         ----------        ========
  Net income (loss) per common share                      $ (0.24)          $ (0.15))
                                                         ==========        ========
</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0505 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0505

**2001/505/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 2001 on the accession of the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 105 on the approval of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods with regard to their specific constructional features **

*
Official Journal L 183 , 06/07/2001 P. 0033 - 0033 *

Council Decision

of 26 June 2001

on the accession of the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 105 on the approval of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods with regard to their specific constructional features

(2001/505/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ("Revised 1958 Agreement")(1), and in particular Article 3(3) and the second indent of Article 4(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(2),

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(3),

Whereas:

(1) The standard requirements of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 105 on the approval of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods with regard to their specific constructional features are intended to remove technical barriers to trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties in respect of specific constructional features of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods and to ensure a high level of safety and environmental protection.

(2) Regulation No 105 has been notified to the Contracting Parties and has entered into force in respect of all the Contracting Parties who did not serve notice of their disagreement by the date or dates specified therein as a Regulation annexed to the Revised Agreement of 1958.

(3) Regulation No 105 should be incorporated into the Community approval system for motor vehicles and thus be added to the legislation in force within the Community,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Community shall accede to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 105 on the approval of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods with regard to their specific constructional features.

The text of the Regulation is attached hereto(4).

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 2001.

For the Council

The President

T. Östros

(1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

(2) OJ C 274 E 26.9.2000, p. 76.

(3) Assent given on 15 May 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(4) This Regulation shall be published in a future Official Journal.
#### Amrit Pal SANGHERA, AKA Amritpal Sanghera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Mei F. Chen, Law Office of Mei F. Chen, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner

*874Lauren Fascett, OIL, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Amrit Pal Sanghera, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Sanghera waived his right to appeal to the BIA, and he did not raise any contentions in his notice of appeal before the BIA that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and voluntary. *See Brown v. Holder,*763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (“On appeal to the BIA, however, [petitioner] did not claim that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore we may not review this claim”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Communications Commission

          - [FR ID 76259]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has appointed the following executives to the Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB): 

Trent Harkrader

Debra Jordan

Holly Saurer

Federal Communications Commission.

Katura Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-05229 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer 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.

March 15, 2005                   /s/ Michael L. Krall
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Michael L. Krall
                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### Morris B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brick TRIPP, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6861

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Morris B. Fahnbulleh, 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:

Morris B, Fahnbulleh, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fahnbulleh v. Tripp,*No. 5:16-hc-02227-D, 2017 WL 4112278 (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and *263legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 966 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Private Calendar No. 7
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 966

                          [Report No. 104-638]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 1996

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             June 26, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, 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. PAYMENT TO NATHAN C. VANCE.

    (a) Payment.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall pay $4,850.00 to Nathan C. Vance of Wyoming for fire 
loss arising out of the Mink Area Fire in and around Yellowstone 
National Park in 1988.
    (b) Source of Funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
amount specified in subsection (a) from amounts made available under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (c) Condition of Payment.--The payment made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall be in full satisfaction of the claim of Nathan C. Vance 
against the United States, for fire loss arising out of the Mink Area 
Fire, that was received by the Forest Service in August 1990.

            Passed the Senate April 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
                                     

                                                 Private Calendar No. 7

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 966

                          [Report No. 104-638]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 26, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLAR (OR US DOLLAR)
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                          37,391
<SECURITIES>                                     8,965
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,070)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,994
<PP&E>                                         346,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                (59,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,481
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,202
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,252
<SALES>                                         76,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,837
<CGS>                                           47,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,369
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
#### Deana J. KINDER; Anthony K. Kinder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-99, Defendants.

No. 17-1224

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Thomas J. Intili, INTILI & GROVES CO., L.P.A., Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants. Michael W. Battle, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deana J. Kinder and Anthony K. Kinder appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their action as barred by the South Carolina statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record provided on appeal and the arguments of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by *288the district court. *Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach,*No. 4:15-cv-01416-RBH, 2017 WL 227969 (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2017).

The Kinders also seek to appeal from the order entered by federal district court in Ohio transferring this case to the district court in South Carolina. We are without jurisdiction to consider a transfer order entered by a district court not within our territorial jurisdiction. *See Preston Corp. v. Raese,*335 F.2d 827, 828 (4th Cir. 1964); *see*28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of 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.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART'*