alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 14 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JUSTIN ADAMS OLIVER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00668

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for obs ervance.
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B)
UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934




In
connection with the Annual Report ofGolden Green Enterprises
Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Liyong Qu, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2008 and results of
operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008.




/s/ Liyong QuName:
              Liyong
      QuTitle:
              Interim
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
              July
      15, 2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lashae D. CALDWELL, Appellant.

ED 106847

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: June 4, 2019

Ellen H. Flottman, 1000 W Nifong, Bdg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.

Mark S. Fisher, 115 W Main St., Bowling Green, MO 63334, Alex G. Ellison, 220 W Church St, Bowling Green, MO 63334, for respondent.

Before: Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Lashae D. Caldwell appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting her of assault in the fourth degree after a bench trial. Defendant argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for her conviction. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been provided a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
----

----

**Exhibit        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,                  in all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly                  Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                  April 3, 2007 |   |                                                                                                      |
|                                 | By:    |  */s/* *Andrew                  Hamilton         * |
|                                 |   | Andrew                  Hamilton                                                                          |
|                                 |   | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                  |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN CHARLES GOFF, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID SHINN, Director; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15511 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01286-DLR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Shawn Charles Goff appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

FILED

JUL 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15511 

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Dr. 

Whalen because Goff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether Dr. Whalen was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See 

Toguchi, 391 at 1060-61 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if 

he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; 

medical malpractice, negligence or difference of opinion concerning the course of 

treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly dismissed Goff’s claim against defendants

Corizon and Centurion because Goff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he 

suffered a constitutional violation as a result of an official policy or custom of 

these contracted health care providers. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 

1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (to state a § 1983 claim against a private entity that acts 

under color of state law, a plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation “was 

caused by an official policy or custom of [the private entity]”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel because Goff failed to demonstrate “exceptional 

circumstances” warranting appointment. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 
3 22-15511 

(9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” 

requirement for appointment of counsel).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                   |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |                                   |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley     
|                        |  | Name:                             |  | J. Roe Buckley         
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | Title:                            |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        | 
|                        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
Ronald WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105871

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: July 3, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kristina Starke Olson, District Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Ward appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward J. DAVIS, Appellant.

No. ED 106421

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 7, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Garrick F. Daplin, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Edward Davis appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for assault, unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and there was no error in the admission of evidence. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
|                          |         |         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------------|--------------|--------|
| /s/ Wayne A. Zallen           |    |         |   |
| Wayne A. Zallen               |         |         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |         |         |   |
|                          |         |         |   |
|                          |         |         |   |
|  /s/ Joann Z. Cleckner   |         |         |   |
|  Joann Z. Cleckner       |         |         |   |
|  Chief Financial Officer |         |         |   |
|                     |    |    |   |

----
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS





Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of CommerceTel Corporation (the “Company”), as the case may be, hereby certifies, pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





2.
The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by this Annual Report.


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 (“SEC”) or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of this Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 14th day of April 2011.





/s/ Dennis Becker


Dennis Becker


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer





/s/ Paul Meyer


Paul Meyer


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
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 Annual Report of Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Frank V. Saracino, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Fund.



/s/     Frank V. SaracinoName: Frank V. Saracino Title: Principal Financial Officer of the Manager and Principal Accounting Officer of RegistrantDate: March 15, 2010


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





Jacob
Schub  the Chief Accounting  Officer,
Secretary  and Director of Global Dynamics Corp , certifies, under the
standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and  results of operations of the Registrant.





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




Date:
      March 15, 2010
            MAJIC
      WHEELS CORP.By:
            /s/ Jacob SchubName: Jacob
      Schub
              Title:    Chief Accounting
       Officer,
  Secretary  and  Director




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: July 1, 2016 

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2014-1116 Pacific International Skydiving Center ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2014WP130012 Respondent



### ORDERFINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE On May 17, 2016, the undersigned-judge held a prehearing conference inthe above captioned
case. During the course ofthe conference, the parties developed ajoint litigation schedule with a timeline dependent upon the hearing date. On May 19, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Prehearing Conference Report, ordering the parties to adhere to thejoint litigation schedule. OnJuly 1, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Notice ofHearing, setting the hearing in this
case to begin on December 13, 2016.
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Prehearing motions 

### A. All motions shall be filed and served on orbefore September 29, 2016. B. Responses to prehearing motions shall be filed within 

### 30 days ofthe date ofservice ofthe motion. 

### C Ifargument is requested by a party, a telephonic conference for argument on prehearing motions will be held on November 10, 2016. 2. Complete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged by the parties and submitted to the undersignedjudge no later than November 14, 2016. 3. Any subpoena requests must be ·submitted to the undersignedjudge no later than November 14, 2016. 4. Each party shall provide the undersignedjudge a CD containing digital copies of premarked versions ofall proposed exhibits no later than November 14, 2016. 5. The parties may, during the course ofthe hearing, request the opportlll).ity to submitposthearing briefs pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13 .231( c).

# ~-.

# -- DOUGLAS M. RAWALD Administrative Law Judge

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2w1000 1

ONE COPY Robert L. Feldman, 

### Respondent's Counsel 8900 SW 107th Avenue, Suite 203 Miami, FL 33**~**76 TEL: 305-598-4841 FAX: 305-598-4842
Don Bobertz, 

### Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Westem-Pacific Region P. 

### 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454 FAX: 310-725-6816
The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, 

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-1116 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation AdministratJon, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·
*

 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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50494

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VIRTIS LEE GIBSON;

JAY LAVONE LLOYD,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CR-149-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 2, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Virtis Lee Gibson and Jay Lavone Lloyd appeal their convictions for conspiracy, possession

of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Gibson

and Lloyd argue that the district court should have suppressed evidence because the affidavit

supporting the search warrant waslacking in probable cause, and Lloyd arguesthat hisincriminating
** Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

2

statements should have been excluded because they were made without the benefit of Miranda**

warnings. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their conspiracy

convictions, and Lloyd also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his possession

convictions. Gibson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for

severance, and Lloyd argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based

on the accidental publication to the jury of a police report.

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we HOLD that the district court did

not err by denying the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence. United States v. Pena-Rodriguez,

110 F.3d 1120, 1129 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 72 (1997); United States v. Broussard,

80 F.3d 1025, 1034 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 264 (1996). The evidence supports the

defendants’ convictions. United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). The district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gibson’s motion for severance and Lloyd’s motion for

a mistrial. See United States v. Tencer, 107 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Ramirez,

963 F.2d 693, 699 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0105 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-58-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus (Previously Eurocopter France) Model EC120B helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 115 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent engine-to-main gearbox coupling tube 

assembly failure, loss of engine drive, and a subsequent forced landing of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $9,194 for installation of new mounting arms and 

brackets

$14,621 for installation of the mounting spring kit

Labor per Helicopter

(12 work-hours X $85 for 

installation of new mounting 

arms and brackets)

(14 work-hours for 

installation of the mounting 

spring kit)

(1 work-hour for the dyepenetrant inspection)

$1,020

$1,190

$85

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $10,214 for installation of new mounting arms 

and brackets

$15,811 for installation of the mounting spring kit

Total U.S. Fleet Cost

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: James Blyn
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of RoomStore, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Curtis C. Kimbrell and Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, respectfully, 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 our 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 31, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Curtis C. Kimbrell    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Curtis C. Kimbrell        
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                   |  |  | 
|                   |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr.
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr.    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Docket No: FAA-2014-1049 Dir ID: 2013-NM-110-AD

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date

Response

TCCA Gordanko Jeremic 6/6/2013 TCCA contact, assisted with 

Bombardier information

Bombardier Chester Liburski 6/13/13 Answered questions regarding Cost 

and Man Hours