alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PAUL JAMES BECK, DOC #762033, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3528

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed September 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### CARPENTER v. ERIE R. CO.

No. 8179.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted on briefs Dec. 11, 1942.

Decided Dec. 16, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1943.

■ Laurie J. Carpenter, of New York City, pro se, for appellant.

Charles W. Broadhurst, of Jersey City, N. J. (Collins & Corbin and Edward' A. Markley, all of Jersey City, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, JONES, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this suit brought by an injured employee against a railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S.C.A. § 51 et seq., it appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose more than fourteen years before the suit was commenced. Since compliance with the two years limitation provided by Section 56 of the act is a condition precedent to recovery (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bridal, 8 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 117) *363and it is, therefore, incumbent upon one suing under the act to allege and prove that his cause of action was brought within the time limited (American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Coronas, 1 Cir., 1916, 230 F. 545) the district court had no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. Its judgment is accordingly affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 15171 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:05

- cr - 80121

- JIC

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LINCOLN MOODY, a.k.a. Jose, a.k.a. Antonio Espinosa, a.k.a. Lincoln Moody, a.k.a. Rate ek Allah, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

_________________ _______ (August 15, 2019) Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 32 Before WILSON , WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Lincoln Moody, a federal prisoner who uses the religious name Rateek Love Allah , appeals pro se the denial of his postconviction motion to correct his
sentence

. Allah a llege d that he was erroneously sentenced in 2006 as a career offender b ecause h is presentence investigation report misstated that he had a prior convict ion for robbery with a firearm when he actually had been convicted of simple robbery

. Allah requested that the district court correct his presentence report and that the district court correct his sentence based on Rosales

- Mireles v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018)

. The district court ruled that it lacked authority to grant Allah rel ief . We affirm. The district court did not err. The district court could not c orrect a fac t stated in Allah’s presentence investigation report when he failed to object to it

. See United States v. Beckles , 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) ( “ I t is the law of this circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes and precludes the argument that there was error in them.” ). The district court also lacked jurisdiction to alter Allah’s sentenc e . Allah filed his motion long after t he 14

- day deadline in which to correct a sentence expired

. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). N o basis existed to modify Allah’s sentence in the absence of either a motion from the Bureau of Prisons to reduce his sentence or an

Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 33 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered his sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

. Allah also was not entitled to postconviction relief based on Molina

- Martinez , which addressed whether a defendant whose sentence i s based on a plainly incorrect sentencing range was entitled to relief on direct appeal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), 138 S. Ct. at 1 906

– 11

. And Allah could not move the district court to vacate his sentence because his motion would be ba rred as successive

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255

. In any event, we have held that errors in the calculation of an advisory guideline range for sentencing a career offender are not cognizable in postconviction review. See Spencer v. United States , 773 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
We AFFIRM the denial of Allah’s motion. Case: 18-15171 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3
D.G., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-550

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MARIO BLADIMIR TREJO, No. 84188 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

FIL 

FEB 2 it 2022 

ELIZAti .11A. 

CLE eil OF LIPREMZ COURT 

CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

pretrial "motion to dismiss case/prosecutorial misconduct and perjury." 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge. 

Because no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an 

order denying a pretrial "motion to dismiss case/prosecutorial misconduct 

and perjury", this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. NRS 

177.015(1)(h) (stating that State or defendant may appeal from an order 

granting a motion to dismiss); Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 

1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

Silver 

Ae,64.

19 Pickering 7 

, J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

01 1947A 2„:1- 601 3 
cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge 

Mario Bladirnir Trejo 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

OA I 947A 4740:17, 2
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)



I, Bruce Newman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Protocall Technologies Incorporated.



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.  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.





May 16, 2008



/s/ Bruce Newman

-----------------------------------------------

Bruce Newman

CEO, Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4227 DAVID EUGENE CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-93-11) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Joel S. Trilling, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM:David Eugene Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). We affirmpursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See Columbus-American Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. , 203 F.3d 291, 304 (4th Cir. 2000).Crawford contends that the district court failed to establish a factual basis for his plea, the Government breached the plea agreement, and the district court erred in attributing more than five kilograms ofdrugs to Crawford. Crawford previously presented each of these arguments to the court in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. See United States v. Crawford , No. 97-7138 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998) (per curiam) (unpublished). B ecause this Court previously considered these arguments on the merits and none of the exceptions enumerated in United States v. Aramony , 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1146 (1999), apply, we affirm the district court's order of judgment and conviction. AFFIRMED 2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Avalon Energy Corporation,  a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 of Avalon Energy Corporation;



2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 annual report;



3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we have:



a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within September 30, 2006 prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.      All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: August 14, 2007





/s/ Robert Klein

---------------

Robert Klein

President and Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Michael WEBB

CR-15-1072

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 17, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
*Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-41444

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus RAFAEL PEREZ-DE CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo

USDC No. 5:05-CR-778-ALL

_________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See 5TH C IR . R. 47.6. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D December 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Devin J. WHITFIELD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Ora V. Marek-Martinez <oramm@navajo-nsn.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 8:03 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare

Hello,

Thank you for the notification. I apologize for not responding sooner, however, I was out of the office. Incidentally, I

have an all‐day meeting today, would you have time to discuss this project on Friday around 10am?  

Best,

Ora

Ora Marek‐Martinez, PhD

Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Historic Preservation Department

PO Box 4950

Window Rock, AZ 86515

Ph: (928) 871‐7198

Fx: (928) 871‐7886

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov]  

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:33 PM

To: Tamara Billie; Ora V. Marek‐Martinez; Timothy Begay

Cc: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare

Good Afternoon,

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is processing a federal Clean Air Act air

quality permit for the McElmo Creek Unit (MCU) Flare. The undertaking triggering consultation under the

National Historic Preservation (NHPA) is the issuance of this Clean Air Act permit. The EPA is the lead federal

agency, and only agency, involved in this undertaking.

Other than the potential installation of a variable speed fan on the Flare, EPA’s undertaking does not authorize

any new construction or modification of existing equipment at the MCU Facility. The undertaking results in no

new surface disturbance or change in operations and therefore will have no effect on eligible historic

properties located within 2 km area of potential effects for the Flare.

I would appreciate talking to you this week or early next week about this action before sending you official

documentation to initiate the NHPA consultation. Please let me know if you are available at the following

times to discuss this action:
2

10:00 am MST, Thurs, 9/3

10:00 am MST, Fri, 9/4

10:00 am MST, Mon, 9/7

10:00 am MST, Tues, 9/8

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR‐3)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415‐947‐4156

Fax: 415‐947‐3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 24, 2014

s0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148475

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148475

COA: 316009

Wayne CC: 06-005810-FH

SHANNON RENARD HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Smitten, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Stock Market
Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we 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 registrant is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


/s/ RICHARD SMITTEN
    ---------------------
Richard Smitten
CEO and CFO

November 7, 2005
Order entered October 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00830-CR

EX PARTE JOSE AMAYA

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX11-90031-R

ORDER

On September 11, 2013, this Court ordered the trial court to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing: (1) the June 26, 2012 order denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus; (2) appellant’s August 24, 2011 application for writ of habeas corpus and memorandum 

of law in support of application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; (3) the 

State’s September 22, 2011 response to the application for writ of habeas corpus, including all 

attachments; (4) the contents of the file from trial court no. F03-34685-R; and (5) the trial court’s 

rule 25.2 certification of appellant’s right to appeal. On September 11, 2013, we received a 

supplemental record containing the trial court’s rule 25.2 certification and the June 26, 2013 

order denying habeas corpus relief. We have not, however, received the remaining documents. 

The appeal cannot proceed until we have received all of the documents ordered.

Accordingly, we ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons to file, by 

OCTOBER 18, 2013, a supplemental record containing copies of: (1) appellant’s August 24, 
2011 application for writ of habeas corpus and memorandum of law in support of application for 

writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; (2) the State’s September 22, 2011 response to 

the application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; and (3) the contents of the 

file from trial court no. F03-34685-R.

FAILURE OF GARY FITZSIMMONS, DALLAS COUNTY 

DISTRICT CLERK, TO FILE THE SUPPLEMENTAL 

RECORD CONTAINING THE ENUMERATED DOCUMENTS 

BY THE DATE HEREIN SET FORTH MAY RESULT IN THE 

ISSUANCE OF A SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND/OR A 

JUDGMENT OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk.

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

the Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; the Dallas County 

District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

PRESIDING JUSTICE