alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40418 (Summary Calendar)

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MARIO ARTURO GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.

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

(USDC No. L-95-CR-14)
- - - - - - - - - - December 8, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Arturo Guerrero appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the ground that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He contends that law enforcement officers did not possess reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of his vehicle because the tip from the confidential informant was not reliable. We have reviewed the2

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court. AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEIDI G. ALDANA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74854

Agency No. A074-802-913

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Heidi G. Aldana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JAN 18 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74854

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d

889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Aldana’s motion

to reopen because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final

order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Aldana did not establish that she

acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation,

see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897. We therefore do not address the merits of the

motion.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to

invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in

declining to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 4:04-cv-00768-A Document 13 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 238
 

 Case 4:04-cv-00768-A Document 13 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 239
 

 Case 4:04-cv-00768-A Document 13 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 240
STATE of Louisiana v. Terrol COLE

No. 2018-KH-0816

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to carry his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Clifford Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                      EXHIBIT 21.1


                                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


Name                                            State of Incorporation
----                                            ----------------------
Concentra Management Services, Inc.             Nevada
Concentra Manage Care Services, Inc.            Massachusetts
Concentra Health Services, Inc.                 Nevada
Prompt Associates, Inc.                         Delaware
New England Medical Claims Analysts Corp.       Massachusetts
First Notice Systems, Inc.                      Delaware
Focus Healthcare Management, Inc.               Tennessee
Hillman Consulting, Inc.                        Nevada
OCI Holdings, Inc.                              Nevada
Concentra Preferred Payment Systems, Inc.       Delaware
PAI Acquisition Corporation                     Delaware
Concentra Acquisition Sub, Inc.                 Delaware
QMC3, Inc.                                      Colorado
CRA Managed Care of Washington, Inc.            Washington
Westest, Inc.                                   Texas
Premier Analytical Laboratories, Inc.           Texas
Drug Screens, Inc.                              Texas
Drug Free Consortium, Inc.                      Texas
Westest Staffing, Inc.                          Texas
Drug Labs of Louisiana, Inc.                    Louisiana
Certified Medical Examinations, Inc.            Massachusetts
Certified Medical Management, Inc.              Massachusetts
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.  350), the undersigned, Donald Wells, Chief Financial Officer of JMG Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the  filing  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  of the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report").  The undersigned certifies 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 operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 26th day of July 2007.   JMG EXPLORATION, INC.  /s/ Donald Wells Name: Donald Wells Title: Chief Financial Officer
C.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 23.2





PWC — Gaveglio, Aparicio y Asociados S. Civil de R. L.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-215029) and Form S-8 (No.333-58298, No.333-129152, No.333-147448, No.333-161459, No.333-168588 and No.333-183142) of Belmond Ltd. and subsidiaries of our report dated June 26, 2018 relating to the financial statements of Perurail S.A., which appears in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Belmond Ltd.








Gaveglio, Aparicio y Asociados S. Civil de R. L.


Lima, Peru


June 26, 2018








Countersigned by:/s/ Francisco PatiñoFrancisco PatiñoPeruvian Certified Public AccountantRegister No. 01-25611
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, StuartJ. Doshi , Chief Executive Officer, and Paul D. Maniscalco, Interim ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tohis knowledge, that:

 
| (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 condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated: May 13,  2010 | /s/ Stuart J. Doshi                 |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                      | Stuart J. Doshi                     |
|                      | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|                      | and Chairman of the  Board          |
|                      |                                |
| Dated: May 13,  2010 | /s/ Paul D. Maniscalco              |
|                      | Paul D. Maniscalco                  |
|                      | Interim Chief Financial  Officer    |
|                      | and Principal  Accounting Officer   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoPetroResources Company and will be retained by GeoPetro Resources Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

*                                             This certification is being furnishedsolely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
# C_2016364EN.01002002.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/20

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-415/16)

(2016/C 364/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.

---
C\C TIC O-f 4He 4uJ)g/4-4h COuH- ^ °$?e&\ 5 ^"^Appei^pjstrict

/5H Cjj^s\ ^onv s\ft^

Su*i^ ^sq

^£". /l^y&rf^^br^

6au£^rfe ^i!~ )^l5-/2>

Ctear ^jr/madAm',

aPh&te biY^ cc&£ *Mi^ m wwi bdhulr

CkG OcArliW m rVU**<*, \l fniiQnrri* g&A farthercdu'i'ScJi

xP rvUj c\$t\lo*e (Vcsftfl Of \0 a. \cu^u\\'ba>^^[

Coo?*'

T^^UIC -focj Oor Y^o»r fnp<;'te±Jtfr*XZ<*n*

$*£> fcci&Jltj.
#### T. Pasco Rodgers and Beatrice Rodgers, *Appellants,*v. Hanchett Bond Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 9, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 6, 1928.

*1239
      *U. D.*Wentworth, for Appellants;

*John De Mareo*and *A. F. Cornelius,*for Appellee.

Whitfield, P. J.

This appeal is from a decree enforcing the lien of a certificate of indebtedness issued by the county upon special assessments of abutting property for road improvements under Chapter 9316, Acts of 1923. The statute provides that “whenever the owner or owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on any public road, or any continuous portion thereof, in any county having a population of not less than 75,000 and not more than 100,000 according to the Federal census of 1920, outside the corporate limits of any municipality, shall present to the Board of County Commissioners of such county a petition duly signed by them asking that such public road be paved, and graded, and curbed, or paved, or graded, or curbed, then it shall be the duty of such Board of County Commissioners to grant the said petition and order the said public road or portion thereof to be paved, and graded, and curbed, or paved, or graded, or curbed as the petitioners may request; the determination of the said Board as to the sufficiency of the petition shall be final and conclusive. After the improvement has been completed the entire cost thereof shall be assessed against the property abutting upon said public road or portion thereof so paved, and graded, and curbed, or paved, or graded, or curbed, in proportion to the frontage of such public road.

Sec. 2. All such assessments for any improvements made under the provisions of this law shall constitute a prior lien to all other liens, except taxes, upon the property against which the assessment is made.”

The Court erroneously sustained an exception to a portion of the answer of the defendants denying that the owners of two-thirds of the abutting property duly signed *1240a petition for the road improvement, since that was a prerequisite to action taken by the county commissioners, and may be judicially determined.

Likewise it was error to sustain exceptions to portions of the answer denying that the notice required by the statute was given and averring that the assessment was made without regard to benefits to the owners of the property assessed, since the statute expressly requires notice and also contemplates that the benefit to the property directly resulting from the improvement shall be at least equal to the special assessment as made. The evidence does not clearly render these rulings harmless error. It does not appear that the defendants have waived their rights in the premises.

The decree is reversed for appropriate proceedings.

Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Exhibit 32

# Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Biotel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

|                          |                                                                                         |             |  |                            | 
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------- |  | -------------------------- | 
|                          |                                                                                         | Biotel Inc.
|Date:   November 10, 2005 |                                                                                         | By:         |  | /s/   B. Steven Springrose | 
|                          |                                                                                        
|                          | B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer) |            
|Date:   November 10, 2005 |                                                                                         | By:         |  | /s/   Judy E. Naus         | 
|                          |                                                                                        
|                          | Judy E. Naus Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)                      |            

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



---
STATE of Louisiana v. Tommie ANDERSON

NO. 2018-K-0738

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.
# FBI

- /jaxbeach-shootings
- hillcresthighschool
- AlabamaAGExplosion
- kc_superbowl_parade
- traumanotification
- tips.fbi.gov
- tipshatecrime
- PrestonLord
- tampashooting
- LewistonTips_divrt
- LewistonTips
- 14thstreetshooting
- huguenotgraduation
- hollywoodbeachmemorialdayshooting
- cttakeovertips
# C_2016364EN.01002101.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/21

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Othman v Council

(Case T-416/16)

(2016/C 364/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-410/16, Makhlouf v Council.

---
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





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of the registrant certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Date: August 8, 2003



/s/ Fed W. Jackson, Jr. 
Fred W. Jackson, Jr.

President,

Chief Executive Officer, and

Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134844(24) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JERRY EVON SPENCER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 134844 

 COA: 278922 

Muskegon CC: 07-045248-AH

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

29, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

p0211 

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. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 28 1 . HOW ELL F. W RI GHT v . NJ UN HOLDI NG, LLC et a l

.

Ho wel l F. W ri gh t fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er award i n g

OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 at t o rn ey fees

. Su ch award s , h o we v e r , m u s t b e ap p eal ed by

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o nary rev i ew. See OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (a) (1 0 ); Jo n es v. Pa d g et t

, 1 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 2, 3 6 3 (2 ) (3 6 7 SE2 d 8 8 ) (1 9 8 8). W ri g h t ’ s fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h t h e

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re d ep ri v es t h i s Co u r t o f ju ri sd i ct i o n t o co ns i d er t h i s

d i rect ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 13, 2017

10/13/2017
* 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 May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40899 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTURO RAFAEL PUENTE-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. 5:04-CR-880

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Arturo Rafael Puente-Solis raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
J.P., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.