alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20702 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ORLANDO JORGE ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-93-CR-312-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Orlando Jorge Espinoza appeals the denial of his motion to correct judgment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he requested that the judgment against him be corrected to reflect the guideline amendment which changed his base offense level from 40 to 38, and his total offense level from 45 to 43. The district court determined that Espinoza’s sentence would not have been lower if the amendment to the guidelines had been in effectNo. 96-20702 - 2 - at the time Espinoza was sentenced and denied the motion as futile. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing relief that would have no effect. See United States v. Shaw , 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). Espinoza argues he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Absent a factual dispute, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the motion without first conducting a hearing. See United States v. Townsend , 55 F.3d 168, 171-72 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH TERRELL BRISCOE, a/k/a Dreads,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00065-JPB-JES-1; 3:14-cv-00127-JPBJES)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Terrell Briscoe, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Terrell Briscoe seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Briscoe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.3

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


Lehman ABS Corporation, as Depositor
745 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee
Corporate Trust Department
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

Re: Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, DaimlerChrysler Debenture-Backed Series
    2004-8 Trust (the "Trust")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have examined assertions of Lehman ABS Corporation (the "Depositor") and
U.S. Bank National Association, (the "Trustee" and, together with the
Depositor, the "Management") that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied,
in all material respects, with the provisions of the Standard Terms for Trust
Agreements dated as of January 16, 2001, as supplemented by a series
supplement dated as of October 19, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement") in
respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, DaimlerChrysler
Debenture-Backed Series 2004-8 Trust (the "Trust"), during the period covered
by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the
Trust for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Annual Report"). Management
is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on Management's assertions based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor's and the Trustee's
compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual
Report and Management's assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly
stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Aston Bell, CPA


New York, New York
March 17, 2006




                               ASTON BELL, CPA
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0489
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert Mills, Chief Financial Officer of Tri-SSecurity Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A ofthe Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the “Periodic Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: November 17, 2005 

 
|   | /s/  ROBERT MILLS            |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Robert Mills,*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

 

----
# g/H5 "]"P Uh«W iV (v,avi fP/'Af„errO nfcjis: X P"i\t\ftfa-^o Sil<vc- TO- T-Q'C ^4-I°13-4H<Q ; K*>* prf^ipusL. Ve^V _&JlM^^&^^H^Q^-O^-^-K^-^"
- 3±t*k te_^JJU-jCQc>cJb_ftfL

_FiJ.('_be*^o_Siet^«-Tic. _Jj

# '""^^S^sm ^ta,Qerk

### •

_ •' njd, ^ow-Cfc-Xlo'l CQ.\wMKiA^ Appeal, at Jl/l//£ KAcsBaiv Pca^_^Ll^ewVvQW-EscLJll^x^- "To-:fa-k

## 2%MMsr< YOS X)\S<ir^\D.c^r^^t^kAAJSL JJs^JVJL fWorfAA-j 3\)cW—oi- Wd CouC^- 

### jCA^-e,(A?iQjv^o^ Tav^-J3>—£il£-jPy fteii^le^^i^bjjxrtiiio^^ _3L Tk \>4e^dn>Nf GxJje^J^o_:J*Oi^iLl(^_^

niL._ 

### CkAfvvtlcwV fa.ftuf.sf&.W £)cA-g.irvttWof °{0 dc^£ »Vx Q^dj>^ to 

### pVaWrv CtX/rV Qje,CQjdU ^d^v^l^-Z^Aii^^ruig-Jra^PEAM P0£- RfUff 

## -jK\\ coutf"V <ytA^ l\^^d-\c^-^oJ-^'g^•~Hj Octej-iW-fe^ bAceeiiot^y-

•Viz <N\a.^ kg, ^fA_WA <\V Umq o>- fyjajk^ \ • • 

## _B^s^yw.\l^jkmi_fefi_ JtiJUJSmo_SAlBeA--3B ^ te^XQ_

(j\0 ffv\ 1pX\- HokAk.T-Px^S ^VQlH
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Krisztina M. Zsebo, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Celladon Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon my knowledge:



|(1) | this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 31, 2014



/s/ Krisztina M. Zsebo, Ph.D.Krisztina M. Zsebo, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Order entered January 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01122-CV

CIA BABIY, Appellant

V.

RAMZI MORGAN KELLEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-04069-2015

ORDER

This case is set for oral argument on February 26, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Merrill 

Hartman Courtroom located on the eighth floor, east tower, of the George L. Allen, Sr. Courts 

Building. The panel hearing the case will consist of Justice Schenck, Justice Reichek, and 

Justice Nowell.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 October 19, 2018

Order 

Clerk

October 19, 2018

156616(26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 156616

v COA: 338877

Berrien CC: 2015-005091-FH

JOHN ANTONYA MOSS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for 

filing its supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as 

timely filed if submitted on or before November 14, 2018.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134931 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134931 

 COA: 278624 
 Wayne CC: 94-005655-03

DEANGELO TAJUAN JONES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2007 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2726 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of cyprosulfamide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 

cyprosulfamide. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF CYPROSULFAMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of cis-4- 

(ethoxycarbonyloxy)-8- 

methoxy-3-(2,5-xylyl)-1- 

azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one 

(cyprosulfamide) (CAS No. 

221667–31–8), including formulation adjuvants (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.91.25) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2726 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-61060

Summary Calendar

 

JASBIR SINGH MALHOTRA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A73 226 340

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jasbir Singh Malhotra, a native and citizen of India, has

filed a petition for review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for withholding

of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief

under the Convention Against Torture. Malhotra argues that the

Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in determining that

there were discrepancies in the record and erred in denying his

application due to a lack of corroborative evidence. Malhotra

argues that he has established a clear probability of persecution
No. 03-61060

-2-

or torture upon his return to India based on his political

activities of writing newspaper articles critical of the Indian

government. The IJ found that Malhotra was not a credible

witness based on inconsistencies between his written statement,

his testimony, and his brother’s testimony. The IJ found that

due to the inconsistencies, corroborative evidence was necessary

and that Malhotra had failed to provide any corroborative

evidence to support his claims. The IJ denied his request for

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

Torture. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. We will not

substitute our judgment of Malhotra’s credibility for that of the

IJ and BIA. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.

2002). Malhotra has not shown that the evidence in the record

compels a conclusion contrary to the decision of the IJ and BIA

that Malhotra’s testimony was not credible particuarly in light

of his failure to present readily available corroborative

evidence to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal

or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Lopez De

Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002).

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Steve M. Hanni, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007;  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 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. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and 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.  Date: July 3, 2008  /s/Steve M. Hanni Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cardero Resource Corp.
(the Company) on Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Blaine Bailey, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: June 17, 2014 |                              
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    |                              
|                    | /s/
      Blaine
      Bailey
|                    | Blaine Bailey,               
|                    | Chief
      Financial Officer

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          58,384
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (563)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,315
<PP&E>                                         196,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,677
<BONDS>                                        167,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,745)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,948
<SALES>                                          2,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,502
<CGS>                                            5,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (81,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (81,323)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (81,323)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.60)


</TABLE>