alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Total Nutraceutical Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Marvin S. Hausman, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. 

| Dated:  May 18, 2011

By:  /s/ Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Chief Executive Officer 

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original 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. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
心脏健康

您也许以为心脏病只会影响男性。

实际并非如此。心脏病是女性的首

要死亡原因。

美国食品药物管理局(FDA)向您提

供建议,帮助您为自己的心脏健康

做出正确决定。

FDA妇女健康办公室

www.fda.gov/womenshearthealth 

了解有关阿司匹林

的知识。

为防心脏病发作或中风而每日服用阿司匹林

的做法并非适用于每个人。

• 询问您的医疗服务提供者您是否应当服用阿

司匹林。

• 如果您应服用阿司匹林,须了解下列信息:

‐您应服用的剂量是多少。

‐您应服用的次数是多少。

‐

有些产品将阿司匹林与其它成分结合在一起,

而且不适于长期服用。

• 告诉您的医疗服务提供者您服用的所有药物和

膳食补充剂。如果在服用阿司匹林的同时还服

用某些药物、维生素或草药,可能会增加出血风

险。

了解心脏病发作征

兆。

心脏病发作的征兆男女或有不同。

• 胸部或肩胛骨之间的剧烈疼痛

•

• 呼吸急促

•

• 异常或不明原因的疲惫

• 感觉头晕或头昏

• 感觉恶心
心脏健康

本说明书是由美国食品及药物管理局妇女健康办公室编写的。

想了解更多关于女性心脏健康的信息,请访问美国食品及药物管理局网站:

www.fda.gov/womenshearthealth

管理您的健康。

常见的健康问题,如高血

压、糖尿病和高胆固醇可能

会增加患心脏病风险。

• 遵医嘱服药。未经医生许可不要停止

用药。

• 如果您患有糖尿病,须检查您的血糖值。

• 检测您的血压和胆固醇。 

• 向医生请教您在怀孕期间应如何管

理自己的健康。

• 有些女性需要仪器帮助心脏运转。向

您的医生请教什么仪器最适于解决

您的心脏问题

2016

保持有益心脏

健康的饮食习

惯。

食品标签上的营养信息可以帮助您

做出健康的食品选择。

• 选择“低盐”或“低钠”食品。

• 限制食用含“反式脂肪”食品。过多的

反式脂肪过多可能引起心脏病。

• 减少糖的摄入量。糖还被标为“葡萄

糖”、“果糖”、“蔗糖” 和“玉米糖浆”。 

心脏健康 (CHINESE)
SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE


SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE

SOUTHERN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN



Effective as of January 1, 2008



1.Section 6.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the words "September 1 of the calendar year prior to the Plan Year in" and substituting therefor the words "the date on".



2.The first sentence of Section 6.3(b) is amended to read as follows:


"An election of the optional form of payment under paragraph (a) above may be made on the Appropriate Form (i) no later than December 31, 2008, in the case of a then current Participant, or (ii) at the time of the Participant's initial election to participate and within the time limits described in Section 2.1, in the case of an Eligible Employee becoming a Participant on or after January 1, 2009."




3.The third sentence of Section 6.3(b) is amended to read as follows:


"An election of the optional form of payment not made within the time limits described in the first sentence of this paragraph (b) must be made on the Appropriate Form at least one year prior to the Participant's Separation from Service and payment pursuant to such optional form may not commence for at least five years following such date."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CR-80

)

ROBERT J. HENDRY )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on August 15, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 4 of the four-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 15th day of August, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 24672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11484]



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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on 
Wednesday, May 3, 1995, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider the following:

    Recommendations regarding an administrative enforcement 
proceeding.
    Matters relating to the Corporation's corporate and supervisory 
activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Jonathan L. Fiechter (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), 
seconded by Vice Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., concurred in by Ms. 
Susan F. Krause, acting in the place and stead of Director Eugene A. 
Ludwig (Comptroller of the Currency) and Chairman Ricki Tigert Helfer, 
that Corporation business required its consideration on the matters on 
less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of 
the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require 
consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; 
and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by 
authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), 
(c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington DC.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Patti C. Fox,
Acting Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11484 Filed 5-5-95; 1:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-0-M
#### Irma Cruz CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73834.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 23, 2004.

Irma Cruz Carrillo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Anthony W. Norwood, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Irma Cruz Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for substantial evidence and will reverse the BIA’s determination only if the petitioner shows that the evidence compels such a result. *Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition.

The veiled threats and the anonymous letter Cruz Carrillo received did not amount to persecution because they were not “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” *Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution) (internal quotations omitted); *see also Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003) *472(concluding that verbal threats and harassment in the absence of any physical violence or harm did not amount to persecution).

Further, even if such threats alone amounted to persecution, there is nothing in the record which indicates such persecution was on account of Cruz Carrillo’s political opinion. *Cf. Sangha,*103 F.3d at 1487-90 (9th Cir.1997) (denying petition for review because petitioner failed to establish that he had a political opinion or that his persecutors imputed his father’s opinion to him).

By failing to qualify for asylum, Cruz Carrillo necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003). As well, Cruz Carrillo is not entitled to CAT relief because she did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, to the extent that Cruz Carrillo contends that the BIA’s streamlining regulations violate her right to due process, her contention is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlining procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
Yves NOEL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9417.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.
Raul Gonzales ESTRADA, petitioner, v. Tom HORNE, Attorney General of Arizona, et al.

No. 12-9708.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE INSPECTION

Defendants shall respond to plaintiff Waymo LCC’s discovery letter brief dated April 10

(Dkt. No. 206) by 5:00 P.M. TODAY. The matter will be heard at the end of the technology

tutorial tomorrow, time permitting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 208 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 1
Generic Drug Facts

Generic medicines are the same high quality as their brand-name versions.

Generic drugs go through a rigorous review process to receive 

FDA approval. The FDA ensures a generic medication provides the 

same clinical benefit and is as safe and effective as the brand-name 

medicine that it duplicates. 

Generic and brand-name medicines have the same:

Active Ingredients

Safety

Effectiveness

Strength

Quality

Benefits

But they can look different.

Allowable differences in size, shape, and color do not impact how medications 

work. Generic medicines may look different than the brand-name drugs they 

duplicate, but they are as safe and effective.

And they can cost a lot less money

Generic medicines tend to cost less than their brand-name counterparts because they do not have 

to repeat animal and clinical (human) studies that were required of the brand-name medicines to 

demonstrate safety and effectiveness. 

When multiple generic companies market the same product, market competition typically results 

in prices about 85% less than the brand-name.

Learn more about generic drugs. Visit www.FDA.gov/GenericDrugs.

www.fda.gov
Jeremiah Paige RICE, aka Jeremiah Rice, aka Jeremiah Pagie Rice, aka Jeremiah Page, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 12-9913.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Demetrius Dwayne BROOKINS, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3776

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Frank DESAN, petitioner, v. Tabb BICKELL, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

No. 12-9106.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**[Prudential Logo]****P r u d e n t i a l   A s s e t   R e s o u r c e s**2 1 0 0   R o s s   A v e n u e ,   S u i t e   2 5 0 0  D a l l a s ,   T X   7 5 2 0 1  T e l   2 1 4 -7 7 7 - 4 5 0 0   F a x   2 1 4 - 7 7 7   4 5 5 6  **Annual Compliance Statement**To: (see attached Distribution List) Re: Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, **Series 2007-IQ15**I, Catherine J. Rodewald, President and Chief Executive Officer of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role as a Master Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of August 1, 2007 pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that: (i) a review of the activities of the Company as DC Hilton Special Servicer u n d e r   t h e   A g r e e m e n t   d u r i n g   t he period from August  1 ,  2007 to  December 31, 2007 and its performance has been made under my supervision; and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations, as DC Hilton Servicer, under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.  Effective Date of Certification: March 20, 2008****/s/ Catherine J. RodewaldCatherine J. Rodewald, President & CEO
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11602]



[[Page 25213]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. GT95-36-000]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 2, 1995, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 
(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1100
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1101
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1102
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1103
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1104
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1105
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1106
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1107
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1108
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1109

    The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is June 1, 1995.
    Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect 
changes in Algonquin's index of purchasers.
    Algonquin states that copies of this filing were served upon each 
affected party and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before May 12, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11602 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI IN CAMERA 

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO 

WAYMO'S FURTHER DOCUMENT 

REQUESTS

Re: Dkt. No. 1213

The Court previously ordered non-party Anthnony Levandowski to make a further 

submission in support of his refusal to produce documents or even a privilege log in response to 

certain Waymo supplemental document requests. (Dkt. No. 1208.) The Court has now reviewed 

Mr. Levandowski’s public and in camera submissions in response to the Court’s order and is 

satisfied that Mr. Levandowski’s withholding of documents, if any, is an appropriate exercise of 

his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. No further disclosure is required.

Any objections to this Order must be filed with the district court on or before August 28, 

2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1364 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo MORENO-RIOS, also known as Juan Herrera-Martinez, also known as Jesus Felix Sustaita, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-41445.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 2004.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roy R. Barrera, Sr., Nicholas & Barrera, San Antonio, TX, for Defendani>-Appellant.

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Adolfo Moreno-Rios, federal prisoner number 71268-079, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). An examination of the record in this case discloses that no final judgment has been entered as a separate document as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. *See Baker v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am.,*114 F.3d 57, 60 (5th Cir.1997).

If we were to treat the order of May 31, 2001, as a Rule 58 judgment, Moreno’s *pro se*notice of appeal, which is stamped as filed on April 14, 2002, is untimely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). Moreover, both the motions to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal or to extend time to file a notice of appeal are nullities, as neither meet the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or (6). *See Wilkens v. Johnson,*238 F.3d 328, 330-31 (5th Cir.2001).

Because, under the peculiar facts of this case, it would be unjust to apply the amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 effective December 1, 2002, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed pursuant to the procedure set out in *Townsend v. Lucas,*745 F.2d 933, 934 (5th Cir.1984). *See Burt v. Ware,*14 F.3d 256, 258-59 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreno may rectify the lack of a separate document judgment by filing in the district court a motion requesting the entry of a Rule 58 judgment. *See id.*After a Rule 58 judgment is entered, a new notice of appeal must be filed within the time prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1). *See id.*

APPEAL DISMISSED; COA DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Cause No. 3:12-CR-128(7) RLM

)

RICKEY HEMPHILL )

OPINION AND ORDER

Rickey Hemphill pleaded guilty in May 2013 to a violation of 18 U.S.C.

1962(c), and was sentenced to a term of 174 months’ imprisonment. As part of his

plea agreement, Mr. Hemphill waived the right to appeal his conviction and

sentence or to file any post-conviction proceedings, but is now before the court

requesting a transcript of his sentencing hearing.

Mr. Hemphill may obtain a transcript of the sentencing hearing for a fee by

contacting the court reporter at (574) 246-8039, but his right to receive

transcripts at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) ended when the

criminal proceedings in this court ended.1

1 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides in pertinent part: 

Fees for transcripts furnished in criminal proceedings to persons

proceeding under the Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A), or in habeas

corpus proceedings to persons allowed to sue, defend, or appeal in forma

pauperis, shall be paid by the United States out of moneys appropriated for

those purposes. Fees for transcripts furnished in proceedings brought

under section 2255 of this title to persons permitted to sue or appeal in

forma pauperis shall be paid by the United States out of money

appropriated for that purpose if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies

that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to

decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.
Accordingly, Mr. Hemphill’s request for a transcript of the sentencing

hearing [Doc. No. 331] is DENIED.2

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 16, 2016 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2 Mr. Hemphill also requested copies of the plea agreement, judgment, and docket

sheet. Those documents are matters of public record and were mailed to Mr. Hemphill

upon receipt of the request. [See Doc. No. 331]. 

2