alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-653816

NO. 2017-BA-0757

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 2, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Committee on Bar Admissions ("Committee") denied petitioner's application to take the Louisiana Bar Examination, citing his record of criminal offenses. Petitioner then applied to this court for permission to take the bar exam. We granted the application, with the condition that upon petitioner's successful completion of the exam, he apply for the appointment of a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence.

Upon passing the bar exam, and on petitioner's application to this court, we remanded this matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. Following the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending that petitioner be conditionally admitted to the *1001practice of law. Neither party objected to this recommendation.

Considering the commissioner's recommendation, the absence of any objection from the parties, and the entire record of this proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to comply with the terms of the recovery agreement he signed with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") on November 14, 2017.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner's JLAP agreement. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall authorize the Executive Director of JLAP to report any violations of the JLAP agreement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner's JLAP agreement, the Executive Director of JLAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner's progress and participation in JLAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner's continued participation in JLAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from JLAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

6. Petitioner shall cooperate with JLAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by JLAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

**CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan MEDINA-VIEDMA, Appellant.

No. 03-3198.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2004.

Decided May 12, 2004.

Stephanie M. Rose, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Juan Medina-Viedma, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Juan Medina-Viedma (Medina-Viedma) appeals the 71-month sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in *61violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) (2000). Medina-Viedma’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

On appeal, counsel argues the sentence imposed was too harsh and the district court failed to state a reason for imposing a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range. These arguments fail. MedinaViedma’s sentence falls within 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)’s 20-year maximum, it is within the appropriate Guidelines range, and we will not review the sentence merely because it is at the top of the range, *see United States v. Woodrum,*959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1992), and the district court was not required to state its reasons for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the Guidelines range (57 to 71 months), *cf. 18*U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) (requiring sentencing court to state reasons for imposing sentence at particular point within Guidelines range where range exceeds 24 months).

After reviewing the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Catherine SHAUGHNESSY, Appellant, v. Kathleen SHAUGHNESSY and Mary Shaughnessy, Appellees.

No. 3D16-2687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 SmartMetric, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay Needelman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





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





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Dated:
      October  14, 2008.
            By:
            /s/
      Jay NeedelmanJay
      Needelman , CPA
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (principal
      financial and accounting officer )
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cleveland NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-7624.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 2004.

Decided: May 28, 2004.

Cleveland Nelson, Appellant pro se.

*451Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded in part; authorization denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland Nelson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Because Nelson’s motion, styled as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, directly attacked his conviction and sentence rather than any alleged defect in the collateral review process, it amounted to a successive § 2255 motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied*— U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). We accordingly vacate the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the motion.

In accordance with *Winestock,*we construe Nelson’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. *See id.*at 208. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Nelson does not satisfy either of these conditions. Accordingly, we deny Nelson’s implicit application for leave to file a second § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; AUTHORIZATION DENIED IN PART*
EXHIBIT 13

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 Pharmaxis Ltd (the Company) on Form 20-F/A-1 for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan D. Robertson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: June 4, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan D. Robertson  
|                   |  |  |  | Alan D. Robertson      
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



---

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 Pharmaxis Ltd
(the Company) on Form 20-F/A-1 for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. McGarvey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: June 4, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ David M. McGarvey  
|                   |  |  |  | David M. McGarvey      
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
----

| 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 conditions and results of operations of                  Registrant. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:                  February 19, 2008 | /s/                  Tami J.                  Story     |
|                                           | Tami                  J. Story                                                 |
|                                           | Principal                  Accounting Officer                                  |

----

----
Adrian Warren LEON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                    
<MULTIPLIER>                   1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997          
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997    
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                  167,906 
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,307,010
<ALLOWANCES>                             66,330
<INVENTORY>                           3,320,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      4,864,684
<PP&E>                                5,278,416
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,059,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        9,143,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 3,175,350
<BONDS>                               2,038,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    28,039
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                            2,686,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          9,143,837
<SALES>                               8,660,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      8,704,677
<CGS>                                 6,806,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         8,073,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        224,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         62,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      161,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         407,104
<INCOME-TAX>                             24,168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     382,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            382,936
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.137
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.134    
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
13.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Paul Noland, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rush Metals
Corporation (formerly American Goldrush Corp.) (the “Company”), certify, 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 20-F of the Company 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 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and  results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
June 25, 2009





By:              /s/ Paul
Noland


Name:              Paul
Noland


Title:              Director,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive and Operating Officer and
Secretary


(Principal Executive
Officer


and Principal Financial
Officer)








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 China Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Julianna  Lu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





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





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





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




March 31,
2009




/s/ Julianna
    LuJulianna
      Lu
                        Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                        Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

        NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES





                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John F. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ John F. McGrath
-----------------------
John F. McGrath
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002

                                    Page 24
|   | (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      Winland. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             | Winland Electronics,      Inc. |                                       |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                             |                           |                                       |   |
| Date:       August 13, 2010 | By:                            | /s/ Thomas      J. de Petra           |   |
|                             |                           | Thomas      J. de Petra                    |   |
|                             |                           | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                             |                           |                                       |   |
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,525]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 9, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a Wisconsin state agency representative on behalf of workers of Broan-Nutone Company, Hartford, Wisconsin.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-8295 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. VERIZON FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.