alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10259 Summary Calendar

UYI KING OSAYANDE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-229

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Uyi King Osayande, federal prisoner # 26653-077 and a Nigerian native, was convicted of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute and possession of heroin with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to concurrent 136-month prison terms. Because he was incarcerated, he was unable to submit new fingerprints required for the processing of his naturalization application. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to have the district court declare him a United States nationalNo. 04-10259 -2- and seeking to have his drug related convictions overturned. The district court dismissed his petition as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and Osayande appealed. On appeal, Osayande offers no argument to challenge the district court’s finding that he had failed to establish that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not provide an adequate or effective remedy for his constitutional claims against his convictions. By failing to challenge the district court’s determination that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, to the extent it challenged his drug convictions, was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Osayande has waived review of that issue. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Osayande argues that, if the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) had not unduly delayed the processing of his naturalization application, the INS would have used his original fingerprint, would not have uncovered his drug convictions, and would have approved his naturalization application. We will not consider this argument as it was not raised in the district

court. See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1998). Finally, Osayande argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he is a United States national and that he is therefore ineligible for deportation. The district court did not so err since it had no jurisdiction to declare Osayande to be a United States citizen orNo. 04-10259 -3- national. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a); Lawrence v. Lensing , 42 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
Randall GORSUCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 15, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE J.W.

1160015 (CR-15-0329)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Sterling Drilling Fund 1984-1 third quarter 1997 10Q and it is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,313
<PP&E>                                       7,981,614
<DEPRECIATION>                              (6,944,081)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,058,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,678
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,030,168<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,058,846
<SALES>                                        254,011<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,011
<CGS>                                          220,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.27<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other- se includes total partners' equity.
<F2>Sales includes $1,432 of interest income.
<F3>The limited partnership income was divided by the total number
of limited partnership units of 9,236.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Kevin GAITHER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Walter H. WARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jennifer SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017. Rehearing Denied February 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jagdeo SUKRAJ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CHEAR PHOEUNG, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0159

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charles JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1158

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ComstockHomebuilding Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Christopher Clemente, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, Bruce Labovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and JasonParikh, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, to our best knowledgeand belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  March  31, 2005 | /s/  Christopher Clemente             |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Christopher  Clemente                 |
|                        | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                                  |
| Date:  March  31, 2005 | /s/  Bruce Labovitz                   |   |
|                        | Bruce  Labovitz                       |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer              |
|                        |                                  |
| Date:  March  31, 2005 | /s/  Jason Parikh                     |   |
|                        | Jason  Parikh                         |
|                        | Chief  Accounting Officer             |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. and will be retained byComstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
B.J., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-1868

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,742
<PP&E>                                          51,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,318)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,185
<OTHER-SE>                                         293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,905
<SALES>                                          3,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,073
<CGS>                                            1,776
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    278
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
                                               

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 741 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 40
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 741

                          [Report No. 118-230]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5525) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2023

Mr. Reschenthaler, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5525) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5525) making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other purposes. All points 
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon passage of H.R. 5525 the title of such bill is 
amended to read as follows: ``Reducing spending, securing the border, 
and for other purposes.''.
                                                  House Calendar No. 40

118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 741

                          [Report No. 118-230]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5525) making continuing 
      appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 29, 2023

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
## § 91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and

**inspections.**

(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless

— (1) W ithin the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, eac h altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter; (2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves, following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and (3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic press ure altitude reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter. (b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by

— (1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be performed; (2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holdin g

— (i) An instrument rating, Class I; (ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested; (iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed; (iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or heli copter, to be tested; or (3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating ( static pressure system

and system integration tests). (c) Altimeter and altitude reporting equipment approved under Technical Standard Orders are considered to be tested and insp ected as of the date of their manufacture. (d) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR at an altitude above the maximum altitude at which all altimeters and the automatic altitude reporting system of that airplane , or helicopter, have been tested.
CERTIFICATIONS
 Exhibit 31.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Veramark Technologies, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 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
and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    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 like to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date: May 14, 2008
    
    By:
    
    /s/Anthony C. MazzulloAnthony C. Mazzullo
President and Chief Executive Officer
 25
NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00 353 - CR 

### COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MISTY ELLES , A ppellant , V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 94 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Order Per Curiam This cause is before the Court regarding the preparation of the reporter ’ s record in
this cause. The court reporter has informed this Court tha t appellant has failed to request the reporter’s record. This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(a)( 2 ). Accordingly,2

this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court. Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and whether appellant is indigent and thus entitled to a free record and appointment of counsel on appeal. If appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, t he court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a reporter’s record, and shall enter any orders required t o avoid further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 20 th day of October, 2016

.
Sandra HERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. MONTEMAR INVESTMENT LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0183

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L AWR E NC E R AY MAL ON DA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71202 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 442- 403 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L aw r e nc e R ayM a l onda , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al 

# FI LED JU N 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71202 2 e v id e n c e , W

akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , and w e de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tM a l ondadi d not e x p e r ie n c e h arm s in I n d o n e s iath a t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . Se e H a lim v. H older , 59 0 F . 3d97 1, 97 5-76 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). In addi t i on , subst ant i alevi dence sup p o rt s th e B IA ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th at , ev en u n d er a d i sfav o redg ro up an al ysi s, M al on da di d n otdem on strat e s uffi ci enti nd i vi du al i ze d ri sk t o est abl i sh a c l ear p r o b ab ilityo f

p e r s e c u tio n , s e e H

o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 31 9 F . 3d11 79 , 11 85 (9th C i r. 20 03 ); W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F .3 da t 1 0 6 6 ( “[ a ]n ap p lic an t f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l w ill need t o add uce aconsi derabl y l ar ger quantum of i nd i vi du al i ze d-ri sk evi dence”) , an dd i dn o td em o n strat e th ere i s a p att ern o r p ract i ce o f p ersecu t i o n ag ai n st C h in e s e C h r is tian s in I n d o n e s ia , see W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F . 3 dat1 0 6 0 -6 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, M al o n d a’ s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m fai l s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
DORAL ROASTERS, INC., Appellant, v. WOLTHERS DOUQUE, LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2535

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.