alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.2


**ELECTRONIC
        JUDGMENT LIEN CERTIFICATE**
 FOR
        PURPOSES OF FILING A JUDGMENT LIEN, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED
        IN
        ACCORDANCE WITH s. 55.203, F.S..
  **JUDGMENT
        DEBTOR (DEFENDANT) NAME(S) AS SHOWN ON JUDGMENT LIEN:**
 
 LIFETIME
        BOOKS, INC.
 2131
        HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
 HOLLYWOOD,
        FL. 33020
 FEI#:
        -
        DOS DOCUMENT#: S17883
  J03000087215
 **FILED**
 **Feb
        26, 2003 02:48 P.M.** **Secretary
        of State**
 JMERRICK
  **JUDGMENT
        CREDITORIPLAINTIFF) NAME AS SHOWN ON JUDGMENT LIEN OR CURRENT OWNER** **OF
        JUDGMENT IF ASSIGNED:**
 
 HERBERT
        L. BECKER
 4804
        LAUREL CANYON BLVD 258
 NORTH
        HOLLYWOOD, CA 91607
 DOS
        DOCUMENT#: N/A
 
 NAME
        AND
        ADDRESS TO WHOM ACKNOWLEDGMENT/CERTIFICATION IS TO BE MAILED:
 
 ALAN
        WAGNER
 WAGNERLAW@AOL.COM
  AMOUNT
        DUE ON MONEY JUDGMENT: 231,195.00
 APPLICABLE
        INTEREST RATE: 4.62%
 NAME
        OF
        COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 CASE
        NUMBER: 97-7176-CIV-DI MITROU LEAS
 DATE
        OF
        ENTRY: 12/07/98
 WAS
        A
        WRIT OF EXECUTION DOCKETED ON THIS JUDGMENT LIEN WITH ANY SHERIFF PRIOR TO
        OCTOBER 1, 2001?
 (
        ) YES
        (IF YES, A "CREDITOR AFFIDAVIT CERTIFICATION" FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS
        CERTIFICATE.)
 (X)
        NO
  **UNDER
        PENALTY OF PERJURY,** I  **hereby
        certify** that:
        (1) The judgment above described has become final and there is no  **stay** of
        the judgment or its enforcement in effect; (2) All of the information set forth
        above is true, correct, current and complete; (3) 1 have not previously filed
        a
        Judgment Lien Certificate regarding the above judgment with the Department
        of
        State; and, **(4)** 1
        have
        complied with all applicable laws in submitting this Electronic Judgment
        Lien
        Certificate for filing.
  Electronic
        Signature of Creditor or Authorized Representative: HERBERT L.
        BECKER
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 8

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                prohibit retroactive increases in taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Coverdell (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
 Helms, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner, 
and Mr. Roth) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                prohibit retroactive increases in taxes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No Federal tax shall be imposed for the period before 
the date of enactment of the tax.
    ``Section 2. This article shall take effect the date of its 
ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

| (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                           |

| Date: July 31, 2009 | /s/ Joseph L. Sullivan        |   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                | Joseph L. Sullivan            |   |
|                | President and General Manager |   |
|                | (principal executive officer) |   |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6875** 

EDDIE GAMBLE, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

VERNESSA CRADDOCK , Defendant

– Appellee , and

L. T. WRIGHT , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- ct

- 03176

- FL )

Submitted : September 2 9 , 2015 Decided: October 15, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eddie Gamble, Sr ., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eddie Gamble, Sr. , seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on several postjudgment motions in his
action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). O n appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gamble’s informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s
disposition, Gamble has forfeited appellate review of the

court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Gamble’s motion for
appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid t he decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 25, 2016

No. 04-16-00236-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.A. IV, ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-01-0021-CVW

Melissa Uram-Degerolami, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record is due today, April 21, 2016. On April 19, 2016, the reporter filed a 

notification of late record, asking for an extension of time to May 10, 2016. The reporter is 

reminded that strict deadlines exist with regard to disposal of appeals dealing with termination of 

parental rights. With regard to the appellate record, appellate courts may not grant more than 30 

days cumulatively with regard to extensions of time for the reporter’s record. TEX. R. APP. P.

28.4(b). Accordingly, we GRANT the reporter’s request, and therefore we ORDER the court 

reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before May 10, 2016. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Onyx Acceptance Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Don P. Duffy, EVP, CFO and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

| |  |                                                                                                               
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ DON P. DUFFY                                                                                              
| |  |                                                                                                               
| |  | Name: Don P. Duffy
Title: Executive Vice President,CFO and Principal Financial Officer
Date: November 14, 2002

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 60

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise 
    the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional 
authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of 
                         its constitutionality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 17 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

 Mr. Specter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise 
    the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional 
authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of 
                         its constitutionality.

Whereas Federal spending and the Federal budget deficit have reached 
        unreasonable and insupportable levels;
Whereas a line-item veto would enable the President to eliminate wasteful pork-
        barrel spending from the Federal budget and curb the deficit before 
        considering cuts in important programs;
Whereas evidence may suggest that the Framers of the Constitution intended that 
        the President have the authority to exercise the line-item veto;
Whereas scholars who have studied the matter are not unanimous on the question 
        of whether the President currently has the authority to exercise the 
        line-item veto;
Whereas there has never been a definitive judicial ruling that the President 
        does not have the authority to exercise the line-item veto; and
Whereas some scholars who have studied the question agree that a definitive 
        judicial determination on the issue of whether the President currently 
        has the authority to exercise the line-item veto may be warranted: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the President 
should exercise the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of 
additional authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial 
determination of its constitutionality.
                                 <all>
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 111

Expressing the sense of Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration should be commended for successfully carrying out the

Mars Pathfinder Mission, and that the United States should continue

to act as the leader in space exploration into the 21st century.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1997

Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. BROWN of California,

Mr. CRAMER, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr.

DIAZ-BALART, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr.

MCCOLLUM, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, and Mrs.

THURMAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should be commended

for successfully carrying out the Mars Pathfinder Mission, and that the United States should continue to

act as the leader in space exploration into the 21st

century.

Whereas the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

successfully landed the United States spacecraft Pathfinder on the surface of Mars on July 4, 1997;

Whereas through this extraordinary achievement the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration will enhance
2

•HCON 111 IH

human knowledge of Mars and provide unique insights

into the history and evolution of the Red Planet;

Whereas the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

successfully followed its motto of ‘‘faster, better, cheaper’’ in landing the Pathfinder on the surface of Mars and

in releasing the 23-pound Sojourner to independently

travel, explore, and analyze samples of the Martian terrain through a focused set of science investigations; and

Whereas the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

has reawakened the consciousness of the people of the

United States to the unlimited potential of space exploration, including possible human expeditions to Mars and

throughout the solar system: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) the National Aeronautics and Space Admin4 istration should be commended for successfully car5 rying out the Mars Pathfinder Mission, an outstand6 ing and uplifting achievement in space exploration,

7 and for its commitment to developing low-cost space8 craft with highly focused science objectives; and

9 (2) the United States should continue to act as

10 the leader in space exploration into the 21st century

11 for the benefit of the people of the United States

12 and for all humankind.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 33 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 33

  Making majority party appointments to Senate committees for the One 
                        Hundred Fourth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              January 6 (legislative day, January 5), 1995

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Making majority party appointments to Senate committees for the One 
                        Hundred Fourth Congress.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's 
membership on those Senate committees listed below for the One Hundred 
Fourth Congress, or until their successors are appointed:
    Budget: Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
Bond, Mr. Lott, Mr. Brown, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
Abraham, and Mr. Frist.
    Rules and Administration: Mr. Stevens, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
Warner, Mr. Dole, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. 
Nickles.
    Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Thurmond, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Brown.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Anthony E. Papa, as Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of NetLojix Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements 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 ofthe Company. 

/s/  ANTHONY E. PAPA---------------------------------Anthony E. PapaChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer

November 13, 2002
#### Santos Gonzalez MARTINEZ, AKA Ananias Mateo Mateo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70881

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Carolina Gomez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carolina Gomez, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice,' Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Santos Gonzalez Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) or(ier dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order dismissing Gonzalez Martinez’s appeal from an IJ’s removal order because he waived his right of appeal, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Joo v. INS,*813 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A waiver of the right to appeal is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”).

To the extent Gonzalez Martinez contends the waiver was invalid because his former counsel failed to ask if he feared persecution or harm in Guatemala, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. *See Zara v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.”); *Brown v. Holder,*763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring petitioner to exhaust challenge to waiver of appeal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez Martinez’s request for prosecutorial discretion. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6988

CALVIN MCCROREY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (0:98-cr-01186-JFA-11)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..

Calvin McCrorey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Calvin McCrorey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). 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 McCrorey has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe McCrorey’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
 3 

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). McCrorey’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 Certification
Pursuant to
 Exchange
Act Rule 15d-14(b) and
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 In
connection with the Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of Shopoff Properties
Trust, Inc. (the ”Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, William A. Shopoff, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 i.
              The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act 1934;
and
 
 ii.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc. and will be
retained by Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Dated: October
      28, 2010
              /s/ William A. ShopoffName:
      William A. Shopoff
                Title:
      Chief Executive Officer