alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LUNAREYE, INC., Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-1413

2016-1837

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 24, 2017

*911Stephen W. Abbott, Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew Compton, Jr., Christopher M. Faucett.

Lore A. Unt, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for interve-nor. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Frances Lynch, Scott Weidenfeller, Mai-Trang Due Dang.

(Newman, O’Malley, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7094

MATT GERALD GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner, Division of Corrections; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cv-01318-WDQ) Submitted: February 26, 2007 Decided: March 9, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matt Gerald Green, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Matt Gerald Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7462** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS MONIQUE BRADDY, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00048

- RBS

- TEM

- 1 )

Submitted : March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curia m opinion
. Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se
. Howard Jacob Zlotnick , Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Monique Braddy , Jr., appeals the district court’s order construing his “Motion for Rescission of Plea Contract” as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and dismissing it on that basis . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justi ce or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district cou rt 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 (2000); se e Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50347

Summary Calendar

__________________

DOYLE LEE HITT, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-94-CA-57

- - - - - - - - - -

November 17, 1995

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he was

denied due process because the trial judge had not completed a

training program regarding child abuse cases; that the childvictim, Brian Hitt, was not competent to testify; that he was
No. 95-50347

-2-

denied his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the

prosecutor blocked his view of Brian during direct examination;

that he was denied due process because Helen Bevers was permitted

to testify although she was not on the prosecution's witness

list; that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction; that he was denied due process because the jury

charge did not track the indictment; that the prosecutor made

improper arguments during his closing argument; that he was

improperly denied the opportunity to request probation; that he

was improperly denied an opportunity to present the testimony of

his expert witness; that Brady material was withheld; and that

the prosecution failed to comply with the plea agreement. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially

the reasons given by the district court. Hitt v. Scott, No. W94-CA-057 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Fortress Investment Group LLC (the Company) for the
annual period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Daniel N. Bass, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Daniel N. Bass     
|Daniel N. Bass         
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 16, 2009         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

End of Filing
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
  (1)
    
    The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Fund.
 /s/ Ashmead Pringle
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 14, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Mechanical Stratigraphy and Natural Deformation in the Permian Strata of Texas and New Mexico: Implications for Exploitation of the Permian Basin—Phase 2 (“Permian Basin—Phase 2”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Noble Energy, Inc. changed its name to Chevron U.S.A. Inc.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Permian Basin—Phase 2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On August 15, 2019, Permian Basin—Phase 2 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice                           ( print page 14041)                        in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2019 (84 FR 48377).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 10, 2020. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 31, 2020 (85 FR 5719).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05203 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 99.12 VIA EDGAR  TO: United States Securities and Exchange Commission  Re: Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 40-F Consent of Expert This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual Information Form). I, Thomas K. Obiri-Yeboah, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:  · the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Companys Esaase Gold Project, Ghana, contained in the Annual Information Form, and  · the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.  Dated March 28, 2014  /s/ Thomas Obiri-YeboahThomas K. Obiri-Yeboah Pr. Eng, MSAIMM DRA Mining (Pty) Ltd
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
  


 
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS    
  


        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-65454) on Form F-3 of
Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Finance Ltd. of our report dated March 10, 2000 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Petróleos de
Venezuela, S.A., for the year ended December 31, 1999 which appears in Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.'s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2001. 


Espiñeira,
Sheldon y Asociados

(a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers) 


/s/
Carlos Hugo Odremán

Carlos Hugo Odremán 


CPC
463

Caracas, Venezuela

June 13, 2002 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dillon James GOFF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1400

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 7, 2017

Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John C. Arced, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BRISCOE, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Dillon James Goff accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to a total term of 216 months’ imprisonment, which is the sentence he agreed to in his plea agreement. Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Mr. Goff appealed. The government moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

Mr. Goffs counsel responded with a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he could identify no non-frivolous argument to oppose the government’s motion. We gave Mr. Goff the opportunity to respond to his counsel’s submission, *see id.*but two separate mailings to him went unanswered.

“Federal Rule-- of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) states that, in structuring a guilty plea, the parties may agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case.” *United States v. Silva,*413 F.3d 1283, 1284 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[S]uch a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). We do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a sentence imposed under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) unless the sentence was “(1) imposed in violation of law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, or (3) is greater than the sentence set forth in the plea agreement.” *Silva,*413 F.3d at 1284.

Mr. Goffs plea agreement plainly states that it is governed by Rule 11(c)(1)(C). Mr. *720Goff has not contested any of the *Hahn*factors or tried to argue one of the exceptions in *Silva.*Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, the remaining motions are denied as moot, and we dismiss the appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                           9,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    183,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,696
<PP&E>                                         485,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                 188,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          192,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           73,553
<PREFERRED>                                     10,203
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                   (228,677)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,483
<SALES>                                        459,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,991
<CGS>                                          338,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (28.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (28.77)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from Balance Sheet,
Statement of Operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto incorporated
in Part I of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                          65,665
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    554,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               839,091
<PP&E>                                       3,285,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,444,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          469,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,640
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,453,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,444,223
<SALES>                                        105,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,345
<CGS>                                           52,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,802,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,740,372)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,740,372)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,740,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Gregory Adonis MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen ALLISON, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15575

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Gregory Adonis Murphy, CMF—Cali-fornia Medical Facility, Vacaville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant .

Kenny Khoa Vu Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Adonis Murphy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Murphy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ear pain and hearing loss. *See id.*at 1057-60 (difference of opinion concerning course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference); *see also Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murphy’s motion to appoint counsel because Murphy did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

We reject as without merit Murphy’s contention that he was held to a higher standard as a pro se litigant.

AFFIRMED.

**

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