alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-30628 Summary Calendar

REGINALD WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant

v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:04-CV-1889

Before JONES, Chief Judge and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * R e gin al d Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 94495, appeals the dis tric t c o urt’ s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for seconddegree kidnapping. The district court granted a c e r t i f icate of appealability on the issue whether Williams’s claim that the state appeals court violated his due process rights by af

f i rming his conviction under a different subsection of the kidnapping statute than that alleged in the bill of information was procedurally barred. Williams does not identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 18 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-30628 Document: 00511635718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2011No. 10-30628

his cla i m as procedurally barred. Accordingly, he has waived the issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Even if he did not waive the issue, he has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. The state district court dismissed his state habeas application raising the claim as untimely; the state

a ppeals court and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ applications, citing LA
. C O D E C R I M
. P. arts. 930.8 and 930.4(A). This court has recognized a dismissal as untimely under Article 930.8 as an independent and adequate state procedural bar. See Glover v. Cain , 128 F.3d 900, 902 (5th Cir. 1997). Williams did not show cause f

o r h i s f a ilure to raise the claim or prejudice. See United States v. Smith , 2 1 6 F

. 3 d 5 2 1, 524 ( 5th Cir. 2000). Williams has also failed to show that a miscarriage of justice as he had not made a persuasive showing that

as a factual matter he did not commi t t he second degree kidnapping crime for which he was convicted. See Finley v. Johnson , 243 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 20 0 1 )

. Therefore, Williams has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-30628 Document: 00511635718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2011
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 Amendment No. 1 to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yang Yong Shan, Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President 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:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  January
      30, 2009By:
                      /s/
      Yang Yong ShanName:  Yang
      Yong ShanTitle:  Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
      Officer)
#### Ignacio MARTINEZ-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72511

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Ignacio Martinez-Torres, Pro Se

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

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ignacio Martinez-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re*916view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Martinez-Torres does not raise, and has . therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as time- and number-barred. *See Corro-Barragan v. Holder,*718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). To the extent Martinez-Torres contends the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his case, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); *cf. Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

To the extent Martinez-Torres challenges the BIA’s December 13, 2011 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider that contention, because this petition is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

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

We do not consider the extra-record documentation that Martinez-Torres submitted with his opening brief. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(judicial review is limited to the administrative record); *Dent v. Holder,*627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review for out-of-record evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*916ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  CERTAIN SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      886
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                147
<INVENTORY>                                 673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,466
<PP&E>                                   17,710
<DEPRECIATION>                            3,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           58,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    37,808
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                               1,830
<COMMON>                                     46
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             58,000
<SALES>                                   3,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,735
<CGS>                                     1,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             7,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        2,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (7,085)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.14)


</TABLE>
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 Broadcaster, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Martin Wade, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Martin Wade III                      
|Martin Wade, III,
Chief Executive Officer



Date:  May 21, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00489-CR

Jonathan Paul FINCHER a/k/a Jonathan Fincher,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the Criminal District Court 1, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1250605D

The Honorable Sharen Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 25, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 38 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 38

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the collection of 
      ancestry data as part of the decennial census of population.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1997

  Mrs. Morella (for herself, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Sununu, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Kucinich, 
  Mr. Menendez, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dingell, Ms. McKinney, Mr. John, Mr. 
   Baldacci, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr. Oberstar) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the collection of 
      ancestry data as part of the decennial census of population.

Whereas the decennial census of population is the only source of complete and 
        comparable information on the ethnic composition of the United States;
Whereas no other source can provide such accurate and reliable data on the 
        changing ethnic composition of this country's population at the 
        national, State, and local levels;
Whereas ancestry data, along with other demographic and socioeconomic data, 
        collected in the decennial census helps policymakers assess patterns of 
        assimilation, mobility, and achievement on the part of different 
        population subgroups;
Whereas the United States Commission on Civil Rights uses census ancestry data 
        to monitor unlawful discrimination based on national origin; and
Whereas ancestry data collected in the decennial census is used by many others 
        as well, including Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
        educators, service providers, businesses, and researchers: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Commerce 
should ensure that the information requested in the 2000 decennial 
census of population with respect to ancestry shall be at least as 
comprehensive as was requested in the 1990 decennial census (in terms 
of content as well as the range of respondents from whom such 
information is sought).

SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.

    The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit a copy of 
this concurrent resolution to the Secretary of Commerce.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Emerson Process Management Valve Automation, Inc., et al.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00152-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-256883

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Relators, Emerson Process management Valve Automation, Inc., Emerson, Process 

Management, LLP, Emerson Process management Regulator Technologies, Inc., and Emerson 

Electric Co., have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s oral ruling 

denying relators’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Relators also filed a motion for 

emergency temporary relief, requesting a stay of proceedings in the trial court.

The Court GRANTS the motion for emergency temporary relief and ORDERS the 

proceedings in trial court case number 18–DCV–256883 STAYED pending further order of this 

Court.

The Court directs real party in interest, Kelli Most, as Personal Representative of the Estate 

of Jesse Jenson, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by March 25, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Richard Hightower______________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 6, 2019__
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 135 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 135

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 14 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 105-240 is further 
amended by striking ``October 14, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``October 16, 1998''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 14, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 78

Rejecting the need for an additional round or rounds of military base closures.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 13, 1997

Mr. SCARBOROUGH submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on National Security

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Rejecting the need for an additional round or rounds of

military base closures.

Whereas the United States continues to face numerous security challenges despite the end of the cold war;

Whereas recent defense reductions and military base closures

have negatively affected the readiness of the Armed

Forces;

Whereas the cost-effectiveness of these base closures has not

yet been clearly established;

Whereas, despite repeated assurances that previous rounds of

base closures would not be politicized, the base closure

process was indeed affected by political considerations;

and

Whereas further defense reductions and base closures would

leave America’s national defense dangerously vulnerable
2

•HCON 78 IH

and unable to meet the challenges of the 21st century:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) reaffirms the need to maintain the utmost

4 readiness of the Armed Forces for the national de5 fense; and

6 (2) rejects recent statements by officials in the

7 executive branch suggesting the need for an addi8 tional round or rounds of base closures.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENNTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,062,910
<SECURITIES>                                 3,497,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,906,482
<PP&E>                                         624,055<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,175,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,429,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,493
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,739,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,175,126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,777,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,607,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,607,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,607,872)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.40)
<FN>
<F1>PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IS REPORTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION OF
$1,094,090.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 6, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00569

- CR

Kristi Rene NIX

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial Dist rict Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B11614

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is

extended to April 4, 2014.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
jAM£5 O. ·Buoor' 0JDwtu. Al101lH£Y CiEN£RAl. 

## _..-**_~~~~~~~~--~~---**



# -

---e,

_ '.'

.C-' 

### !%_Ia-"U 

## "f ')!iauisiana

_ . DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE**.O:"!'OX"flOO~' ~~--­**  BATON ROUGE

7()l1()4..900.5 

## ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENTFORFINAL AUTHORIZATION FORCHANGES TO THE FEDERAL RCRA PROGRAM FROM JULY 2008 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2009 RCRA CLUSTERXVIII
I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as Attorney General ofthe State ofLouisiana, through undersigned colUlsel and 

### in accordance

### with Section 3006(b) ofllie Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ofl984 (42 USC 6901 

### et WI.). and 40 CFR271 that in my opinion the laws ofthe State ofLouisianaprovide adequate authority to carry out the revised program set forth 

### in the revised**~Program** Description" submitted 

### by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes orregulations lawfully in effect at the time this Statement is signed. The regulatory provisions for which the state ofLouisiana is seeking authorization are documented 

### in 

## the attached Revision Checklists 209, 216, 217 and 218. Differences between the state ofLouisianaprovisions and the Federal provisions are noted on the Revision Checklists 209, 216, 217 and 218. 

### In addition, the State is requesting authorization for the Remediation and Correction Action Program 

### (RECAP) and otherregulatory requirements that may be more stringent or broader 

### in scope than federal requirements. The State regulations may be found 

### in the Environmental Regulatory Code produced by the LouisianaDepartment ofEnviromnental Quality, ERC Title 33, PartV. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 2009 edition and ERe.Title 33, Part 

### 1. Office ofthe Secretary, Chapter 13. This certification supplements my or mypredecessor's certification ofOctober 9, 2008. STATIITORY CERTIFICATION 

### I hereby certify that statutes addressed in previous authorization applications submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency have not been amended, modified orrevised. Revisions have -------Jbeen-made-to..the..Statutes,..huLnone thai speci6ca.Jly_affeet Ihe-RCR.A..prograIIL...Ihe..statoI.y.'::-

_ authorities for the State ofLouisiana are documented in the Louisiana RCRA Statutory Checklist dated August, 2002.' . CERTIFICATION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY OR POLICY IN1TIATIVES I hereby certify that the State ofLouisianahas not enacted any legislation or implemented any regulatory or policy initiatives that could potentially limit or interfere 

### with the authority to implement, administer, or enforce the authorized hazardous waste program.

# ------------------------ --------------_._- -------

CERTIFICATION REGARDING JUDICIAL DECISIONS 

### Therehave nOl 

### been anyjudicial decisions 

### that limitorinterfere with the State's authority to implement, administer, or enforce the authori r ou
S D_ D¥" CALDWELL 

### ATIORNEY GENERAL STATE OF LOUISIANA
Order entered October 23, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01351-CV 

IN RE JASON R. SCHUH, M.D. AND NORTHSTAR ANESTHESIA, P.A., Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-01461-C 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus 

without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent petition for writ of mandamus upon entry of a 

written order by the trial court. We DENY relators’ motion for immediate temporary relief. We 

ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

 JUSTICE