alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald K. NELSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Director, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 00-16518.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 15, 2004.

Donald K. Nelson, Arizona State Prison — CB6, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Diane M. Ramsey, Esq., AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Donald Kenneth Nelson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Nelson contends that his rights to a fair trial were violated when his co-defendant, who was being tried separately, was brought into the courtroom during Nelson’s trial wearing jail clothes, handcuffed, shackled and escorted by armed guards so that he could be identified by a witness. This claim lacks merit because the in-court identification of Nelson’s co-defendant was not so inherently prejudicial as to pose a threat to Nelson’s fair trial rights, nor did it result in actual prejudice to Nelson. *See Holbrook v. Flynn,*475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986); *Jones v. Meyers,*899 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that shackling of the defendant himself is not necessarily a violation of his constitutional rights).

Next, Nelson contends that his due process rights were violated because of prosecutorial misconduct. The claim fails because even if the prosecutor’s conduct was improper, it did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to render the resulting eon*451viction invalid. *See Darden v. Wainwright, 477*U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (holding that petitioner is not deprived of a fair trial despite the prosecutor’s inflammatory and offensive remarks when the weight of the evidence supported the verdict and the trial court instructed the jury that closing arguments were not evidence).

Nelson also contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Habeas relief is not warranted where, as here, a reasonable juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. *See Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Nelson’s motion to broaden the certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 by the Chief Executive Officer,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Jeffrey
      Markin ,
      as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                Jeffrey MarkinJeffrey
                Markin
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              November
                14, 2006





This
      Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 88]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32235]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[FL54-1-6026b; FRL-5089-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State implementation plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Florida for the maintenance 
plan and the redesignation of the Duval County ozone area to 
attainment. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the 
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial 
revision amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn 
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by February 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Joey LeVasseur, 
Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, 
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region IV Environmental 
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

    Copies of the material submitted by the State of Florida may be 
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV Air Programs Branch, 345 
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Air Resources Management Division, Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joey LeVasseur, Regulatory Planning 
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics 
Management Division, Region IV Environmental Protection Agency, 345 
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is 
404/347-3555 ext.4215.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: September 28, 1994.
Joe R. Franzmathes,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-32235 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit 3 (a)

                         ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                               TO THE
                       ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                 OF
                     TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY




Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4.04 and 10.03 of the Texas Business
Corporation Act, the undersigned corporation adopts the following articles of
amendment to its restated articles of incorporation to be effective as set
forth herein.

                            ARTICLE ONE

The name of the corporation is Texas Utilities Electric Company.

                            ARTICLE TWO

The following amendment to the restated articles of incorporation was adopted
by the sole shareholder of the corporation on May 14, 1999.  The restated
articles of incorporation are amended to change the name of the corporation.

The amendment alters or changes Article I of the restated articles of
incorporation and the full text of each provision of Article I is amended to
read as follows:

                            "ARTICLE I

           The name of the Corporation is TXU Electric Company."


                          ARTICLE THREE

The number of shares of the corporation outstanding at the time of such
adoption was 138,156,400; and the number entitled to vote thereon was
138,156,400.

                          ARTICLE FOUR

The holder of all of the shares outstanding and entitled to vote on said
amendment has signed a consent in writing pursuant to Article 9.10 adopting
said amendment and any written notice required by Article 9.10 has been given.


<PAGE>
                         ARTICLE FIVE

This amendment does not necessitate an exchange, reclassification or
cancellation of issued shares.

                         ARTICLE SIX

This amendment does not effect a change in stated capital.


                         ARTICLE SEVEN

The name of the registered agent as PRESENTLY shown in the records of the
Texas Secretary of State is Texas Utilities Services Inc. (Office of the
Corporate Secretary).  The name of the NEW registered agent is TXU Business
Services Company (Office of the Corporate Secretary).  The address of the
registered office will remain the same.  This change of registered agent was
authorized by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.


                         ARTICLE EIGHT

This amendment shall be effective as of June 14, 1999.



                                   TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY




                                    By:
                                        John F. Stephens, Jr.
                                        Assistant Secretary
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 **

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

JOHN THOMAS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. COX,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-16693

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01165-GSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted July 17, 2012*** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John Thomas appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

FILED

JUL 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16693

defendant used excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions related to trial

management. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1200 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’ pretrial

motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness because Thomas filed the

motion more than two months after the court’s deadline and did not identify the

witness or indicate how the witness’ testimony was relevant to the alleged incident

at issue. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“Trial courts have broad authority to impose reasonable time limits.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Irrelevant

evidence is not admissible.”).

Because Thomas failed to provide a transcript of the trial, we are unable to

review his contentions challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.

1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal of pro se appellant for failure to provide a

trial transcript). Accordingly, we decline to consider Thomas’ appeal to the extent

he contends that the district court made erroneous rulings during the trial.

Thomas’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 0 4 0 8 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- C F

- 0 00481

_____________________________
N EVILLE G EORGE A NTHONY B ETHUNE , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ircuit Court for Lee County

. J. Frank Porter
, Ju dge.

J u l y 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

.

STARGEL and MIZE , JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig , II, Public Defender, and Andrea Flynn Mogensen
, Special Assist ant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRE S TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Jamal Kevin DELAUGHTER, DOC #511498, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carbiz Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl
Ritter, Chief Executive 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.

| | /s/
      Carl Ritter        
| | -----------------------------
| | Carl Ritter                  
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (principal executive officer)
| | June 16, 2008                

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
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 Cono Italiano, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex J. Kaminski, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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, 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.





Date:
September 14, 2009




By:
              /s/ Alex J. KaminskiName:   
      Alex J. KaminskiTitle:     
      Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                        CENTOCOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (unaudited)
                     (in thousands, except per share data)


Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
For the three months ended March 31,                              1997               1996
                                                                --------           --------
<S>                                                             <C>                <C> 
PRIMARY:
 
  Weighted average shares outstanding                            69,517             59,944
  Net effect of dilutive stock option and warrants               
    based on the treasury stock method using
    average market price                                          2,142                  -              
                                                                --------           --------  
  Totals                                                         71,659             59,944
                                                                ========           ========
  Net income (loss)                                              $3,271            ($9,698)
                                                                ========           ========   
  Per share amount                                               $ 0.05             ($0.16) 
                                                                ========           ========
 
FULLY DILUTED:
 
  Weighted average shares outstanding                            69,517             59,944
  Net effect of dilutive stock option and warrants
    based on the treasury stock method using
    average market price which is greater than
    quarter-end market price                                      2,142                  -               
                                                                --------           --------
  Totals                                                         71,659             59,944
                                                                ========           ========  
  Net income (loss)                                              $3,271            ($9,698)
                                                                ========           ========  
  Per share amount                                               $ 0.05             ($0.16)
                                                                ========           ========  
</TABLE> 

  Note: Common stock equivalents which would have an antidilutive effect on the
        calculations of per share data are not included in the above analysis.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDOLPH ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Sergeant WARE, Lieutenant MOORE,

Lieutenant D. M. BENEDETTI,

Counselor WILLIAMS, and Appeals

Coordinator W. B. CHILDRESS,

Defendants.. /

No. C 05-1922 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In an ordered entered on

August 3, 2007, the Court dismissed the complaint for the second time and granted leave to

amend within thirty days. Plaintiff has not amended. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\ALLEN922.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:05-cv-01922-WHA Document 14 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
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 Cono Italiano, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mitchell Brown, Principal
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 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, 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.





Date:
November 23, 2009




By:
            /s/ Mitchell BrownName:   
      Mitchell BrownTitle:     
      Principal Executive Officer
Alfredo RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roy F. DUSSOUY, Jr. v. Lisanne Alack DUSSOUY

NO. 2019-CC-0675

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.
Herbert Levonn COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4606

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S 

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

DATE: May 24, 2018

TIME: 1:30 p.m.

CTRM: Courtroom 8

JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 748 Filed 05/22/18 Page 1 of 4
1 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d)(2), Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated respectfully submits 

this Statement of Recent Decision calling the Court’s attention to the Minute Order deciding 

CalTech’s Motion for Review of Order Denying Motion to Compel Production of Ex. 341 (ECF 

No. 510), in The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, et al., No. 16-cv-3714-

GW (C.D. Cal.), which was entered on the docket on May 11, 2018 and is attached as Exhibit A. 

Qualcomm respectfully submits that the decision is relevant to the Federal Trade Commission’s 

Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 716-3). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 748 Filed 05/22/18 Page 2 of 4
2 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Dated: May 22, 2018

By:

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

 s/ Yonatan Even 

Gary A. Bornstein

Yonatan Even

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (212) 474-1000

Fax: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Robert A. Van Nest

Asim M. Bhansali

Eugene M. Paige

Justina Sessions

David W. Rizk

Alexander Dryer

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

rvannest@keker.com

abhansali@keker.com

epaige@keker.com

jsessions@keker.com

drizk@keker.com

adryer@keker.com

Richard S. Taffet

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060

Tel: (212) 309-6000

Fax: (212) 309-6001

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

Willard K. Tom

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Tel: (202) 739-3000

Fax: (202) 739 3001

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 748 Filed 05/22/18 Page 3 of 4
3 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Donn P. Pickett

Geoffrey T. Holtz

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126

Tel: (415) 442-1000

Fax: (415) 442-1001

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant Qualcomm 

Incorporated

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 748 Filed 05/22/18 Page 4 of 4