alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin ROBBS, a/k/a Frankie Boo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7357

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Franklin Robbs, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent, Asheville, North Carolina, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Daniel Steven Ryan, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Robbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifí-cate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

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

*DISMISSED*
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 118

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation of missile

technology from Russia to Iran.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 22, 1997

Ms. HARMAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proliferation

of missile technology from Russia to Iran.

Whereas there is substantial evidence in support of allegations that nongovernmental entities in the Russian Federation have provided missile technology and technical

advice to Iran, in violation of the Missile Technology

Control Regime;

Whereas these violations include providing assistance to Iran

in developing ballistic missiles, including the transfer of

wind tunnel and rocket engine testing equipment;

Whereas these technologies give Iran the capability to deploy

a missile of sufficient range to threaten United States

military installations in the Middle East and Persian

Gulf, as well as the territory of Israel, and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Turkey; and
2

•HCON 118 IH

Whereas President Clinton has raised with Russian President

Boris Yeltsin United States concerns about these activities and the Russian response has to date been inadequate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) the President should demand that the Gov4 ernment of Russia take concrete actions to stop non5 governmental entities in the Russian Federation

6 from providing missile technology and technical ad7 vice to Iran, in violation of the Missile Technology

8 Control Regime;

9 (2) in the absence of such actions, the United

10 States should impose sanctions on the responsible

11 Russian entities in accordance with Executive Order

12 12938 on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass De13 struction, and reassess cooperative activities with

14 Russia;

15 (3) the threshold under current law allowing for

16 the waiver of the prohibition on the release of for17 eign assistance to Russia should be raised; and

18 (4) our European allies should be encouraged to

19 take steps in accordance with their own laws to stop

20 such proliferation.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41194

Conference Calendar

 

JOE REEVES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRANK NOVAK; J. REYNAUD; R. LAPOINTE, Captain;

RAMSEY II UNIT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-358

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joe Reeves, Texas prisoner #591205, appeals from the

dismissal of his prisoner civil rights action as frivolous. 

Reeves contends that the defendants deprived him of due process

during prison disciplinary proceedings and that the defendants

retaliated against him for using prison grievance procedures and

for his success in previous litigation.

Reeves fails to brief whether the district court erred by
No. 97-41194

-2-

holding his due process claim barred because he has not shown

that the result of his disciplinary hearing has been invalidated.

He therefore has failed to brief the proper issue for appeal

regarding his due process claim. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Reeves cannot demonstrate plain error regarding his

retaliation contention, which he raises for the first time on

appeal. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,

1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Reeves’s allegations do not give

rise to any inference of retaliation; his retaliation contention

is frivolous. See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819-20

(5th Cir. 1988). 

Reeves’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore is

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). We previously dismissed an appeal by Reeves as frivolous. 

Reeves v. Novak, No. 96-41021 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 1997)

(unpublished). The district court’s dismissal of the present

case and our dismissal of Reeves’s appeal constitute strikes two

and three against Reeves for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Because

Reeves has three strikes, he may not bring a civil action or

appeal as a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER
No. 97-41194

-3-

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 229

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp

should be issued honoring the United States Submarine Force on its

100th anniversary.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 26, 1998

Mr. GEJDENSON (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BATEMAN,

Ms. DELAURO, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr.

KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mr. KING,

Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr.

SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SKELTON, Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington,

Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. STUMP, Mr. TIERNEY, and Mr. WOLF)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued honoring the United

States Submarine Force on its 100th anniversary.

Whereas, in the year 2000, the United States Submarine

Force will celebrate a century of service to the Nation;

Whereas little has captured our imagination more than exploring the ocean depths;

Whereas submarine technology has proven invaluable to our

Nation by strengthening our national defense, preserving
2

•HCON 229 IH

world maritime freedom, and producing scientific breakthroughs;

Whereas submarines have not only provided a remarkable

strategic platform, but have helped establish a firm foundation for scientific exploration;

Whereas the United States Submarine Force was responsible

for 55 percent of all Japanese shipping destroyed during

World War II even though submariners constituted only

2 percent of all United States Navy personnel serving in

that war;

Whereas 52 American submarines and over 3500 American

submariners were lost during World War II;

Whereas, in peacetime, the Silent Service continues to patrol

around the clock under the oceans to keep us free; and

Whereas veterans of the United States Submarine Force have

served with honor and courage, risking their lives in combat against determined foes and always against an unforgiving sea: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be

4 issued by the United States Postal Service honoring

5 the United States Submarine Force on its 100th an6 niversary; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a stamp be issued.

Æ
EXHIBIT
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MigoSoftware, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Liebman,
      Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting 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:
      August 10, 2006








/s/
      Richard
      Liebman


Richard
      Liebman


Chief
      Financial Officer


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Wei Shi, 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 Toyota Auto Receivables 2014-C Owner Trust (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 required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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 the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.





March 25, 2015
By:  /s/ Wei ShiWei Shi

President

Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as Depositor

(Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 167 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 167

      To correct a technical error in the enrollment of H.R. 2160.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 1997

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
      To correct a technical error in the enrollment of H.R. 2160.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of H.R. 2160 the Clerk of the House shall, in 
title IV, in the item relating to ``DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS--food stamp 
program'', strike the period and insert the following: ``: Provided 
further, That none of the funds made available under this heading shall 
be used for studies and evaluations.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

November10, 2006

BruceN. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.certifies:

a.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

|        | /s/ Bruce N. Warner                                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner                                           |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer |   |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                              SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of March 1, 2000, is made by and between
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Paula
Manley (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to a severance agreement
dated May 8, 1998, restated effective as of August 26, 1999 (the "Severance
Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS the Company has recently adopted an Amended and Restated Employee
Retention Program (the "Retention Program"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to confirm that the benefits
provided for under the Retention Program are in addition to those provided for
in the Severance Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

     1.   Amendment.  The third sentence of Section 11 of the Severance
          ---------
Agreement is amended by changing the period at the end of the sentence to a
semicolon and adding to the sentence the following clause: "and provided
further, that, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the
Executive shall be entitled to receive any benefits provided for in the
Company's Amended and Restated Employee Retention Program on the terms and
subject to the conditions provided for therein."

     2.   Continuing Effect of Severance Agreement.  The Severance Agreement
          ----------------------------------------
shall remain in full force and effect, except as amended hereby.


                                        EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL CORP.



                                        By /s/ Paul A. Strasen
                                           ---------------------------


                                           /s/ Paula Manley
                                           ---------------------------
                                                   Paula Manley
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis BERNAL-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10013

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 17, 2017

William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

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 **

Jose Luis Bernal-Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(i), and 846. We dismiss.

Bernal-Arias challenges the district court’s finding that he was not safety valve eligible, as well as the district court’s decision to apply a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. The government contends that the appeal is barred by an appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo whether the appeal is barred by a waiver. *See United States v. Arias-Espinosa,*704 F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012).

The appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement covers Bernal-Arias’s claims, and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. *See United States v. Harris,*628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, Bernal-Arias argues that the district court vitiated the written waiver at sentencing. This claim fails because the court’s statement regarding Ber-nal-Arias’s right to appeal was qualified. *See Arias-Espinosa,*704 F.3d at 618-20. We also reject Bernal-Arias’s call to ignore the appeal waiver to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” Even assuming this court recognized such an exception to the enforceability of an appeal waiver, it does not apply here.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JESSE CLEVELAND HARRELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1366

[August 8, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah Weiss, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 1999CF006554A.

Jesse C. Harrell, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         188,082
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  244,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                   27,999
<INVENTORY>                                    352,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               851,017
<PP&E>                                         339,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,213,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          915,247
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    183
<COMMON>                                       1,294
<OTHER-SE>                                     282,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,213,453
<SALES>                                        263,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,859
<CGS>                                          48,487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  571,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (278,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (280,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (280,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)


</TABLE>