alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tony B. STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-56219.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Tony B. Stewart, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

Analee J. Brodie, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California prisoner Tony Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review *de novo, Clark v. Murphy,*331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Stewart contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed to specifically instruct the jury regarding his theory of defense.

Although both the California Appellate Court and the district court found that the trial court erred in failing to give the specific instruction regarding excessive force by police officers, the district court correctly found that habeas relief is not warranted because Stewart cannot demonstrate that the error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” *Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* Pursua nt to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10097 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRISCILLA DeVITA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(5:02-CR-91-2)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed Priscilla DeVita’s conviction and

sentence, followin g a jury trial, for conspiracy and aiding and

a betting to take a motor vehicle resulting in serious bodily

injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3 71, 2119, and 2119(2).

United States v. Devita , 03-10097, 86 Fed. Appx. 738 (5th Cir. 10

Feb. 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted Devita’s

petition for writ of certiorari and for leave to proceed in forma2

pauperis ; vacated our previous judgment; and remanded the case for

further consideration in the light of United States v. Booker
, 543

U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). DeVita v. United States , 125 S.

Ct. 1032 (2005).

We requested supplemental briefs from the parties addressing

the impact of Booker . DeVita filed a supplemental brief, claiming

reversible plain error; citing new authority, discussed below, the

Government moved to reinstate the prior affirma nce of DeVita’s

conviction and sentence, or, in the alternative, for an extension

of time to file its sup plemental brief. Other than advising the

Government that she opposes its motion, DeVita did not respond.

DeVita did not raise Booker -error until her petition for writ

o f certiorari. Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not

consider a d efendant’s B ooker -related claims presented for the

first time in a petition for writ of certiorari. U nited States v.

Taylor
, 409 F.3d 675, 67 6 (5th Cir. 2005). DeVita has not

demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’ s motion to reinstate prior

affirmance of Appellant’s conviction and sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s alternative request for

an extension of time of 14 days fromthe court’s denial of the

motion to reinstate prior affirmance of Appellant’s conviction and

sentence to file its supplemental brief is DENIED AS MOOT.
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Parallel forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the informationcontained in that Form 10-Q/A Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofParallel.       Dated: May 9, 2006   /s/ Steven D. Foster             Steven D. Foster,      Chief Financial Officer     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
APPENDIX 8 - A. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES TABLE OF CONTENTS 8- A.1 INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................. 8-A-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8 -A.1.1 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Retail .................................. 8-A-1 Figure 8 -A.1.2 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Medical ............................... 8-A-2 Figure 8 -A.1.3 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Industrial ............................ 8-A-2 Figure 8 -A.1.4 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Hotel ................................... 8-A-3 Figure 8 -A.1.5 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Food Service ...................... 8-A-3 Figure 8 -A.1.6 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Office ................................. 8-A-4 Figure 8 -A.1.7 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Public ................................. 8-A-4

8-A-iAPPENDIX 8 - A. DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR DISCOUNT RATES 8- A.1 INTRODUCTION The Department of Energy derived commercial discount rates ( i.e. weighted average cost of capital) for the life
- cycle cost (LCC) analysis using the capital asset pricing model and firm
level data provided by Damodaran Online. 1 Figure 8
- F. 1 .1 through Figure 8
- F. 1.7 show t he probability distributions of commercial discount rates by industry.

Figure 8 -A.1.1 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Retail 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

1.8% 2.5% 3.6% 4.5% 5.4% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.3% 10.7%Probability

Discount Rate

8-A-1Figure 8 -A.1.2 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Medical

Figure 8 -A.1.3 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Industri al

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

1.8% 2.5% 3.6% 4.4% 5.4% 6.3% 7.4% 8.1% 9.7% 10.9%Probability

Discount Rate

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Probability

Discount Rate
8-A-2Figure 8 -A.1.4 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Hotel

Figure 8 -A.1.5 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Food Service 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

1.4% 2.7% 3.7% 4.6% 5.5% 6.5% 7.5% 8.3% 9.4% 10.4%Probability

Discount Rate

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

3.7% 4.5% 5.4% 6.4% 7.4% 8.6%Probability

Discount Rate

8-A-3Figure 8 -A.1.6 Distribution of Commercial Discount Rates: Office

Figure 8 -A.1.7 Distribution of Comm ercial Discount Rates: Public 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

0.6% 1.6% 2.6% 3.5% 4.5% 5.4% 6.4% 7.3% 8.3% 9.5% 10.1%Probability

Discount Rate

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

1.1% 2.1% 3.4% 4.6% 5.4% 6.4% 7.9%Probability

Discount Rate

8-A-4REFERENCES 1. Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry Sector, 2012. Damodaran. (Last accessed July, 2013.) < http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ >

8-A-5
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 8, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

1. Winifred Holm, Omaha, Nebraska; to retain voting shares of Mackey BanCo, Inc., Ansley, Nebraska, and thereby retain shares of Security State Bank, Ansley Nebraska. In connection with this notice, Notificant also has applied to become a member of the Royal family group.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19, 2018.

Margaret M. Shanks,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-01330 Filed 1-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit
          32.1**
  **CERTIFICATIONS**


**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 Transition Report of The Medical Exchange Inc. (the
            "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the transition period from July 1, 2006
            to
            December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange on the date
            hereof
            (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
            below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
            pursuant
            to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
            knowledge:
  1.
            The
            Report 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 operation of the Company.
  /s/
            Michael Goldberg
 Michael
            Goldberg
 Principal
            Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
 February
            23, 2007
  
 
  A
            signed
            original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
            document
            authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
            appears
            in typed form with the electronic version 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.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

124 

KA 09-00734 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHESTER PARKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci,

Jr., J.), entered March 4, 2009. The order determined that defendant

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court

abused its discretion in failing to grant him a downward departure

from his presumptive risk level. Defendant failed to preserve that

contention for our review inasmuch as he did not request such relief

before the court (see People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110, lv denied 11

NY3d 708; People v Graham, 35 AD3d 299, lv denied 8 NY3d 808). In any

event, we conclude that defendant “failed to present the requisite

clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special

circumstances warranting a downward departure” (People v Marks, 31

AD3d 1142, 1143, lv denied 7 NY3d 715; see Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110). 

Although defendant completed two sex offender treatment programs as

well as aggression replacement and substance abuse treatment programs

while incarcerated, he failed to offer any evidence suggesting that

his response to that treatment was “exceptional” (Sex Offender

Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 17

[2006]). Moreover, the fact that defendant may have abstained from

using alcohol and drugs or engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior

while incarcerated is “ ‘not necessarily predictive of his behavior

when [he is] no longer under such supervision’ ” (People v Urbanski,

74 AD3d 1882, 1883, lv denied 15 NY3d 707; see People v Vangorder, 72

AD3d 1614), and defendant “offered no competent evidence of his

behavior since his release from prison” (People v Ferrara, 38 AD3d 
-2- 124 

KA 09-00734 

1302, 1303, lv denied 8 NY3d 815). 

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         117,499
<SECURITIES>                                     1,364
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,212
<PP&E>                                       3,943,835
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,557,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,545,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,522,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,545,051
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,590
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 79,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000751255
<NAME> DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1985-1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          22,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,369
<PP&E>                                      20,980,051
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,810,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,095
<SALES>                                        312,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  295,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN RE COMMITMENT OF Laurence Edward MILLIGAN.

Laurence Edward Milligan, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4408

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Joanne R Finnerty, certify that: 1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KA of JMG Exploration, 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 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; 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 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: June 29, 2006. /s/ Joanne R. FinnertyJoanne R. FinnertyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Albert E. LYNGZEIDETSON, Appellant, v. Beata Marianna DEMKO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1204

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Matthew DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2599

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.