alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO ISRAEL CAHUEC, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

GREGORY SMITH; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

NEVADA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 14-15593

D.C. No. 

3:09-cv-00113-RCJ-RAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 1, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

 Hugo Cahuec, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed the district court’s dismissal

of his habeas petition on grounds of failure to exhaust and untimeliness. We

FILED

DEC 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
granted Petitioner’s motion to stay appellate proceedings because his threshold

actual innocence claim was then pending before the Nevada state courts. The

Nevada Supreme Court has now held that the evidence he presented was not

reliable and affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.

We have requested, received, and reviewed supplemental briefing from the

parties as to the current status of the appeal. The actual innocence claim is now

exhausted and the district court has not yet considered it in light of the record

developed in state court while this appeal has been pending. We have therefore

ordered this appeal submitted on the briefs. We vacate the district court’s order

denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and remand for the district court

to consider the petitioner’s claims in the first instance. 

We also GRANT the pending motion to file the final volume VI of the joint

supplemental excerpts of record under seal. 

This panel shall retain jurisdiction of any further appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2
STATE EX REL. David L. WILLIAMS, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017 KW 1194

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

*714Denied.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Optionable, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge and belief, 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:  May 26, 2005                              /s/ Edward O'Connor
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Edward O'Connor
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


  [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Optionable, Inc. and will be retained by Optionable, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Gomez, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant.Short &amp; Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator's award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator's award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law ยง 5106 (b), denying petitioner's claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (<i>see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. &amp; Sur. Co.</i>, 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; <i>Matter of Petrofsky <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>[Allstate Ins. Co.]</i>, 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; <i>Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.]</i>, 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (<i>see</i> CPLR 411).</p><p>MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 17, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.12

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

$2,800,000                                          Date: 5/30/02

For Value Received, the undersigned Alltech Associates, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, promises to pay to the order of Richard A. Dolan, an individual TWO
MILLION, EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS
At Deerfeild, Illinois
Due on Demand.

No.__________________                    Alltech Associates, Inc.
Due on Demand                            an Illinois corporation


Due on Demand                            By: /s/ Geoffry Matlin
                                             -----------------------------------

                                         Its: CFO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early estimates for the retail trade with a mixed model 

Pieter Vlag (Statistics Netherlands) 

Like several other European countries, Statistics Netherlands increasingly uses the 

Value Added Tax (VAT) registration as administrative data source for small and medium 

(SM) sized enterprises. Yearly, quarterly and monthly turnover estimates are based on 

the VAT-registration. Problem when using VAT for quarterly and monthly turnover 

estimates is that part of the VAT-data are missing because they arrive late or are 

reported for another periodicity. This is especially the case for the first estimates of the 

retail trade – 28 days after the end of the month - when no VAT data at all are available. 

Hence, these early estimates have to be based on a survey for the largest enterprises 

only. 

These early estimates are slightly biased compared to later definitive monthly estimates 

when part of the VAT data for the SM enterprises become available. This bias becomes 

even more pronounced when relating them to quarterly turnover estimates, when also 

data from quarterly VAT reporters can be incorporated in the estimates. Previous 

research revealed that this bias is mainly caused by a generally slightly lower growth 

rate for SM enterprises compared to large enterprises (due to economic reasons). 

In this study we present a method to correct the bias in the first monthly estimates. The 

method is based on using observed differences in growth rates between SM and large 

enterprises in previous periods. During the presentation several methodological options 

to include the difference in growth rate for the previous periods in the first estimates will 

be discussed. The results show that this approach seems to be quite promising as it is 

quite robust for changes in the business cycle whatever the exact methodological 

solution chosen.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **3 -**  **118**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. VERNON GRIMES , Defendant

- Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:09

- c r - 0 0 103

- H

- 1 ; 5 :12

- cv - 00466

- H )

Submitted : October 30, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Vernon Grimes , Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P. May

- Parker , Assistant United States Attorney s , Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vernon Grimes seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 201 3 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(1) (B) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standa rd 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 Grimes 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 legal3 contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Mandingo BOOBYYAA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2068

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

Mandingo Boobyyaa, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
**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**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:    | /S/                Stephen                Smith                                                                                                                                             |   |   |   |
|   | Stephen                      SmithChief                      Financial Officer and Director(Secretary,                      Treasurer and Principal Financial                      Officer) |

----
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of SFSB, Inc. (the
“Company”) each certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








/s/
      Philip E. Logan


Philip
      E.
      Logan


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


November
      14, 2008








/s/
      Sophie Torin Wittelsberger


Sophie
      Torin Wittelsberger


Vice-President
      and Chief Financial Officer


November
      14, 2008








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document,
      and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason
      other
      than as specifically required by law.





41
----

|                                                        |   | /s/ Thomas A. Vento                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   | Name: Thomas A. Vento                        |   |
|                                                        |   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                        |   |                                         |   |
|      Date:  February 14, 2011 |   |                                         |   |

|                                                        |   | /s/ Joseph R. Corrato                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   | Name: Joseph R. Corrato                                     |   |
|                                                        |   | Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                        |   |                                                        |   |
|      Date:  February 14, 2011 |   |                                                        |   |
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: FRANK MARDEUSZ,

 /

No. 17-cv-00063 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

The Court is in receipt of a document entitled “Appellant Frank Mardeusz Dismissal

of Appeal as Moot.” See dkt. 6. Appellant asserts in the document that there is no longer a

case or controversy about his right to reside at and occupy the subject property. Id. Good

cause appearing therefor, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2017 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Armitage Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence Stephenson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of February, 2006.


/s/ Laurence Stephenson
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Randall H. Brown, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Education Realty Trust, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Dated this *13*th day of November, 2006.         /s/ Randall H. Brown   Randall H. Brown   Chief Financial Officer
Chad WILSON v. Timothy HOOPER

No. 2018-KH-1586

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 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 satisfy 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 *1266the 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and amendments thereto

<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>
         Form S-8 No. 33-21505          Employee Stock Purchase Plan
         Form S-8 No. 333-41671         Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan
         Form S-8 No. 333-41669         1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan
         Form S-8 No. 333-41673         Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
         Form S-8 No. 333-42131         Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan
         Form S-8 No. 333-54734         Stock Grant Plan

</TABLE>

of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 2001 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Beverly Enterprises,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2000.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 28, 2001
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1340 CAF 13-01090**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHNATHAN CRAIG, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
AMBER M. YAKYMOVITCH, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES T. NOCE, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MAUREEN A. PINEAU, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (John B. Gallagher, Jr., J.), entered May 10, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole custody of the subject children. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court