alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Timothy STEWART, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6990

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 20, 2017

Decided: January 9, 2018

Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly O. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

■ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Moore has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. *See Rice v. Rivera,*617 F.3d *119802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Poole,*531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Moore’s petition. *Rice,*617 F.3d at 807. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s orders. However, we modify the dismissal order, *Moore v. Stewart,*No. 8:15-cv-02440-GJH, 2016 WL 5200869 (D. Md., filed Sept. 15, 2016 & entered Sept. 16, 2016), to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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 AS MODIFIED*
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Powerhouse Technologies Group, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent
      Heyman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to my 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.





Date:
      May
      15,2006








/s/
      Kent
      Heyman


Kent
      Heyman


Chief
      Executive Officer





26
#### Catherine HILL, individually and as heir of Dillon M. Hill and as special administrator of the Estate of Dillon M. Hill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16260

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 17, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 5, 2017

Samuel B. Benham, Esquire, Attorney, Steven M. Burris, Attorney, Law Offices of Steven M. Burris, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Kathleen A. Wilde, Esquire, Attorney, Marquis & Aurbach, LeAnn Sanders, Trial Attorney, Shirley Blazich, Michael McLoughlin, Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen *&*Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Catherine Hill appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANGELIC A M EJIA R ODR IGUEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71166 Age n c y No. A070-955-613 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Ange lic a M e jia R o drigue z , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# FIL ED JUN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. M e jia R odrigue z doe s not c la im pa st pe rse c ution in El Sal va dor, a nd substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t M e jia R odrigue z did not e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution, se e Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th C ir. 2009) (re c ord did not e sta blish there q

uisiteobje c tive c om

pone nt of a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution); se e also Hak e e m v . IN S, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ [a ] n a

pplic ant’ s c la im of pe rse c ution upon re turn is we ake ne d, e ve n unde rc ut, whe n

sim ila rly -situa te d fam ily

m e m be rs c ontinueto livein the c ountry without inc ide nt” ). Thus, M e jia R o drigue z ’ s a sy lum c la im fa i ls. B e c a use M e jia R odrigue z did not m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , it follows tha

t she ha s not m e t the highe r sta n da rd for withholding of re m ova l. Se e Ze haty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r M e jia R o drigue z ’ s c onte ntion tha t he r c a se be re m ande d for a

n e x e rc ise of prose c utoria l disc re tion. Se eVilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012) (orde r).

1 3 - 7 1 1 6 6 2Fina lly , M e jia R odrigue z ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions a re une xha uste d. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 1 1 6 6 3
Page 1 of 1 7/19/2010 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA12097_modest.jpg
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Sterling H. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer ofEvolution Petroleum Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Evolution Petroleum Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrantand have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 15,2007
|        | /s/ STERLING H. MCDONALD |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Sterling H.  McDonald    |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 5, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-220825) of Smart Trust 355,
comprising Smart Trust, Tax Free Income Trust, Series 27.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 5, 2017
Agenda EPA / Alliance / Global Part 1066 / 4WD Test Factor Program / R Factor 

meeting

May 20 2013 9:00 Am eastern

1. Introductions

2. 4WD Dyno test factor program (2WD vehicles on 4WD dynos)

 Review EPA/Industry test program to develop factor to be applied to 2WD vehs when tested on 

4WD dynos to simulate a test on 2WD dynos

 Discussion of Part1066 4WD requirement language:

 For 2WD vehicles, including hybrids, will EPA continue to confirm vehicles the way the 

manufacturer certified and conduct 4WD testing only for defeat device testing? Slide 44 

of May 14 2013 EPA/Industry meeting

 Current practice (and Alliance proposal for 1066) is that EPA test in the same dyno mode 

as manufacturer (i.e., 2WD or 4WD); 4WD tests would then be used for non-official, 

data collection purposes.

 NPRM language in 1066 allows EPA to confirm on 4WD dyno’s, regardless of how OEM 

tests. When does EPA plan to exercise this authority? The 1066 language suggests that 

it could be pulled ahead early (i.e. prior to the manufacturer’s new 4WD requirements 

in 2022MY) like all other 1066 provisions except track coastdown and application of 

J2951.

 What is the threshold for “does not decrease emissions or energy consumption relative 

to normal in-use operation.” Is it +/- 3 percent plus the 2WD-4WD correlation factor?

 What does this language mean regarding the term “four-wheel drive”:

(g) For vehicles which provide four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive operation, utilize the vehicle’s 

normal (default) mode of operation. (For purposes of this paragraph (g), the term four-wheel 

drive includes other multiple drive axle configurations.) This may involve testing four-wheel drive 

or all-wheel drive on a dynamometer with a separate dynamometer roll for each drive axle. 

Alternatively, two drive axles may use a single roll, as described in §1066.210(d)(1). You may also 

test the vehicle on a single roll by deactivating the second set of drive wheels, but only if this 

mode of operation does not decrease emissions or energy consumption relative to normal in-use 

operation. We may test such vehicles in four-wheel or all-wheel mode on one or more rolls to 

confirm that the alternate dynamometer procedures did not decrease emissions.

3. Test Fuel Equivalency 

 R Factor

o EPAct errors

 Review of proposals for FE equations and CREE / ADCREE

4. Part 1066/1065/86/600/1037 issues 

 ASTM Fuels Issues

o ASTM Test procedures

o CNG/LPG comments

o General Fuels comments for 1065/1066

 Part 1066/1065/86/600/1037 issues

 Other issues (AC17 temperature & humidity tolerances)
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC25 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; and LNR Partners, LLC.

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

CGCMT 2014-GC25 Certifications
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,620                  32,620
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,193                   2,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100                     100
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,045                  35,045
<PP&E>                                           2,875                   2,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,256                   1,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,696                  36,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,093                   4,093
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        44,148                  44,148
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,545)                (11,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,696                  36,696
<SALES>                                          1,897                   5,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,897                   5,611
<CGS>                                              680                   2,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      680                   2,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,430                   9,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (506)                 (1,250)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,707)                 (5,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20                      70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,727)                 (5,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,727)                 (5,437)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)                  (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)                  (0.66)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, David R. Wells, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Powerhouse
Technologies Group, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: February 18, 2005

BY:  /s/ David R. Wells
    -------------------
David R. Wells
Vice President, Finance Operations
(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF S.N.L., A MINOR

CHILD

PETITION OF: E.L., NATURAL FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 171 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUC TS, LLC, Appellant

,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Appellee

.

______________________

2014

- 1136

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . 90/009,378, 95/000,468.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P AUL J. C RONIN , Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for appellant. With him on

the brief were H EATHER B. R EPICKY and L ISA J. A DAMS

.

J OSEPH R. R E , Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP, of Irvine, California, argued for appellee. Wi th him on the

brief were C HRISTY G. L EA ; B RADLEY T. L ENNIE , Hunton & Williams, LLP, of Washington DC; and R OBERT A. K ING and D AVID A. K ELLY , of Atlanta, Georgia.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, W ALLACH

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 14, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court