alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 4**  **7 6** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. VANESSA DAWN WILLIS , Defendant

– Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We stern District of Virginia , at A bingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00 0 39

- JPJ

- 1; 1 : 1 0

- c v - 8 0 2 79

- JPJ

- MFU )

Submitted : June 20, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011

Before KEENAN, WYNN , and DIAZ, Circuit Judge s .
Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam o pinion
.
Vanessa Dawn Willis , Appellant Pro Se
. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vanessa Dawn Willis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on h er 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) 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) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standar d 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 d istrict 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 Willis h as 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 contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Ricky NEALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 accompanying quarterly report of First Aid Direct,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2002,
as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Scott  Siegel,  Chief Executive 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,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  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 fully presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



                                     By:  /s/  Scott Siegel
                                     -----------------------
                                     Name:  Scott Siegel

Date:  October 21, 2002
-----------------------


<PAGE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - (-)alabama(2)
              - alaska(39)
              - american samoa(6)
              - california(67)
              - colorado(3)
              - hawaii(45)
              - idaho(3)
              - montana(6)
              - nevada(1)
              - new jersey(3)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - puerto rico(30)
              - virginia(14)
              - washington(13)
              - wyoming(8)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Photography        June 5, 2016        Fairweather Fault

Photography        June 5, 2016        South Crillon Glacier
Reinaldo BACALLAO v. MADISON COUNTY, Mississippi

2017-CT-00043-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: September 18, 2018 Closed: December 13, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
**Exhibit
      13.1**





**Certificate
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of
      2002**





I,
      Rudi
      Fronk, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Seabridge Gold Inc. (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,
      to
      the best of my knowledge:





1. the
      Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company dated March 15, 2006 for the fiscal
      year ending December 31, 2005 (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.








Dated:
      March 15, 2006


/s/
              Rudi FronkRudi
              FronkChief
              Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Inergy Holdings, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Inergy Holdings, L.P., 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.



|                        |  |                                               
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/    R. BROOKS SHERMAN,
JR.                 
|Date: November 28, 2007 |  | R. Brooks Sherman, Jr. Chief Financial Officer

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 within 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. FRANCISCO GOMEZ

- CRUZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No s
. 19

- 50200 19

- 50201
D.C. No s . 3:19

- cr - 00741

- LAB

- 1

3:18

- cr - 03281

- LAB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4 , 2020 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Francisco Gomez

- Cru z appeals the 16

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 10

- month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 502 0 0 & 19

- 50201

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez

- Cruz contends that the aggregate 26

- month sentence is substantively unreasonable . He argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a two

- level fast

- track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 , and that the circumstances did not support consecutive high

- end
sentence s
. The district court did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) ; United States v. Rosales

- Gonzales , 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The 26

- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing f actors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gomez

- Cruz’s significant immigration history. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3( f ). Moreover, contrary to Gomez

- Cruz’s contention s , the district court considered the section 3553(a ) factors and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence , s ee United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984,
99 1

- 92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) , and did not rely on any clearly erroneous fact s ,

see United States v. Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“ A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. ”).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.1




STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF


KERYX
BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


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 Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ron Bentsur, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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:November 5, 2010
              
              /s/ Ron BentsurRon
      Bentsur
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                Principal
      Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 99.1**ANNUAL STATEMENT SERVICER’S CERTIFICATEVW CREDIT, INC. VOLKSWAGEN AUTO LOAN ENHANCED TRUST 2005-1      The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of VW Credit, Inc. (“VCI”, or the“Servicer”), pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 16, 2005 (as amendedand supplemented, otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the “Agreement”), by andamong Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 2005-1, as Issuer, Volkswagen Public Auto LoanSecuritization, LLC, as Seller, VCI, as Servicer, and Citibank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, dohereby certify that: 1. VCI is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.  2. The undersigned is a servicing officer and is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreementto execute and deliver this Certificate to the Rating Agencies, the Issuer and theIndenture Trustee.  3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2005through December 31, 2005 and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted under mysupervision.  4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in allmaterial respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of theServicer this thirtieth day of March, 2006.                     /s/ Bruce Harris   Name:  Bruce Harris   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
A.M., Mother of J.S., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2943

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 12, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 28, 2018

Amy Morales, Candler, pro se.

Kelley Schaeffer, of Department of Children and Families, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, of Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
A.R.B., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D17-933

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 13.3   SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  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 Legrand Holding SA (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrice Soudan, Chief Financial Officer of
Legrand SA, 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: April 30, 2004   /s/ Patrice Soudan Name: Patrice Soudan Title:
Chief Financial Officer of Legrand SA
Michael Theodore MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5177

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
GENERAL SESSIONS.

NEW YORK,

JANUARY, 1824.

#### *The People*vs. *John Robinson.*

Petit Larceny.

Present—Honourable *Richard Riker,*Recorder.

*Maxwell,*District Attorney, Counsel for The People.

*Phœnix,*Counsel for the Prisoner.

Mr. *Maxwell*called a number of witnesses to prove the felony, and then offered to read the examination of the prisoner taken before the committing magistrate, and called Mr. Hatfield to prove the handwriting of the magistrate.

*Phœnix*objected, and insisted that the magistrate *241himself must be called to prove examination was taken according to law.

- *Maxwell*replied that proof of the handwriting of the magistrate who took the examination had always, in this court, been deemed sufficient, and that might be proved by any person acquainted with his handwriting.

The court decided that where objections were made to the regularity of the examination, it was necessary to produce the magistrate who took it, or his clerk.

Note.—It is the practice in the New-York Sessions for the district attorney fwhose humanity is as conspicuous as his acknowledged talents) to withhold the examination of prisoners upon their trial, when he thinks the statement therein would operate in their favor, and-that upon the ground, that reading the examination in some cases would give the prisoner an opportunity to exculpate himself by his own evidence, and the court I believe has so decided in more than one instance.

It appears to me to be a very hard case that a prisoner may be examined for the purpose of securing evidence to be used upon his trial, and that evidence withheld at the option of his prosecutor. Why is he examined ? Is it for the exclusive benefit of the state *1*Certainly not. All the English authorities go upon the principle that the examination is taken for *his*benefit. It is said the examination has been considered rather as a privilege in favour of the party accused *afforded by law*for the benefit of an innocent man, who perhaps may on examination clear himself from suspicion, and then he will immediatély regain his freedom, than as any additional peril. 1 Chitty’s Cr. L. 68. And another fact, from which an argument might be drawn to show the examination should be read in evidence upon the trial when demanded by the prisoner is, that if the prisoner *242insist upon it the magistrate is *compelled*to take his examination. Fortes. 142. It therefore appears that it is for the prisoner’s benefit, and it appears equally true, that if the examination is not read he loses the benefit of that privilege the humanity of the law has allowed him. Should not the examination, if requested, be read ? and if it contains matter in favour of the prisoner, like every other species of evidence, its credibility may be judged of by the jury.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00287-CR

EX PARTE K.G.

On Appeal from the

19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-555-C1A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 7, 2021
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - (-)products_data(1)
              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(38)
              - news_news-149248(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(8)
              - california(41)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - oklahoma(4)
              - oregon(5)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - (-)tennessee(1)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(5)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Data Release        May 15, 2023        Memphis Urban Seismic Hazard Maps, v2008
STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos CESPEDES

NO. 2018-KO-0263

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133422 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133422 COA: 262620 Wayne CC: 03-011405-01 ANDREW STEWART, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
**Exhibit 12**GLADSTONE COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONRATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS                                       For the period                   February 14, 2003   For the year ended  For the year ended  For the year ended  For the year ended  (inception) through   December 31, 2007  December 31, 2006  December 31, 2005  December 31, 2004  December 31, 2003 Net income (loss) fromcontinuing operations $6,031,515  $3,357,031  $3,510,957  $1,529,253  $(240,871)                     Add fixed charges andpreferred dividends  15,670,067   11,490,476   2,494,245   25,565   7,830                                      Earnings $21,701,582  $14,847,507  $6,005,202  $1,554,818  $(233,041)                     Fixed Charges:                    Interest expense  10,847,346   8,041,412   2,187,586   —   — Amortization ofdeferred financingfees  717,195   1,207,198   260,098   —   — Estimated interestcomponent of rent  11,776   54,976   46,561   25,565   7,830                                      Total fixed charges  11,576,317   9,303,586   2,494,245   25,565   7,830                      Total preferred dividends  4,093,750   2,186,890   —   —   —                                      Total fixed charges andpreferred dividends  15,670,067   11,490,476   2,494,245   25,565   7,830                      Ratio of earnings tocombined fixed chargesand preferred dividends  1.4   1.3   2.4   60.8   — (1) (1)   Note for the period February 14, 2003 through December 31, 2003 earnings, asdefined, were insufficent to cover fixed charges by $240,871.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 IPEC Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph Giordano,
Jr., President (Chief Executive 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


/S/JOSEPH GIORDANO, JR.
----------------------
Joseph Giordano, Jr.
President (Chief Executive Officer)


                                       20
<PAGE>