alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:14-CR-77 RLM

)

JEFFERY PAUL MILLER )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant, Jeffery Miller, was sentenced in November to an aggregate term

of 135 months after pleading guilty to an information charging him with interstate

transportation of stolen goods and money laundering. Despite the waivers and

admissions in the plea agreement, Mr. Miller filed a motion to vacate his sentence

[Doc. No. 38], which the court construes as a petition for habeas relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, and a notice of appeal [Doc. No. 39].

Although Mr. Miller isn’t barred from filing a motion to vacate his sentence

while a direct appeal is pending, see DeRango v. United States, 864 F.2d 520, 522

(7th Cir.1988), the court can’t consider such a motion “absent extraordinary

circumstances.” United States v. Barger, 178 F.3d 844, 848 (7th Cir. 1999); United

States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398, 405 (7th Cir.1993) (collecting cases). The reason

is simple – disposition of the appeal may render the § 2255 motion moot. Id.

“Whether extraordinary circumstances exist . . . depends upon the need for speedy

relief against the need for conservation of judicial resources.” United States v.

Davis, 604 F.2d 474, 485 (7th Cir. 1979). 

Mr. Miller hasn’t identified a need for expediency in this case. He claims,

among other things, that retained counsel was negligent and ineffective because
he didn’t move to withdraw the plea agreement and didn’t “bring up important

facts, circumstances and client requests at sentencing”; that he was under the

influence of drugs at the time of his plea; that the Assistant United States Attorney

misrepresented the terms and conditions of the plea agreement; and that the

probation officer who prepared his presentence investigation report had a conflict

of interest. But Mr. Miller’s allegations are vague and conclusory, unsupported,

and inconsistent with his testimony at the change of plea hearing and sentencing

and the express waiver of his right to appeal and to file a petition for postconviction relief. 

Had Mr. Miller not filed a notice of appeal, the court would have given him

a chance to withdraw his motion to vacate or to submit any supporting materials

he wished the court to consider. See Nolan v. United States, 358 F.3d 480, 482

(7th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 710 (7th Cir. 2001). But

in light of the pending appeal and in the interest of conserving judicial resources,

the court DISMISSES the motion to vacate sentence [Doc. No. 38] as untimely.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 11, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.2(a)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                             TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


         This AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Consulting Agreement between the parties is
entered into by and between Michael Baker Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation (the "Corporation") and Richard L. Shaw, an individual (the
"Executive"), effective April 26, 2003.

WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into the Consulting
Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
effective April 25, 2001, and continuing for a two (2) year term until April 26,
2003; and

WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive now desire to extend the term of the
Consulting Agreement upon the same terms and conditions for an additional two
(2) year period until April 26, 2005;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound hereby,
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:


         The term of the Consulting Agreement effective April 25, 2001 between
         the parties shall be, and the same hereby is, extended for an
         additional two (2) year term from April 26, 2003 until April 26, 2005
         upon the same terms and conditions.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, effective April 26, 2003, the parties have executed
this AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Consulting Agreement.


                                        MICHAEL BAKER CORPORATION
Attest:                                 (The "Corporation")


/s/ H. James McKnight                   By: /s/ Donald P. Fusilli, Jr.
----------------------                      ----------------------------
H. James McKnight                           Donald P. Fusilli, Jr.
Secretary                                   President & Chief Executive Officer


Witness:                                    Richard L. Shaw
                                            (The "Executive")

/s/ Margaret P. Shaw                        /s/ Richard L. Shaw
-----------------------                     ------------------------
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the second amendment of the Annual Report of Ubiquitech
Software Corporation (the Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended herein
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Brian
Sobnosky, Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated:
June 25, 2008




By:
            /s/ Brian
      SobnoskyBrian
      Sobnosky
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
#### L. Seville PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard FALGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15307.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

L. Seville Parks, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Robert Simon, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Michon A. Martin, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Ne-

*810vada Attorney General, Son City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

L. Seville Parks, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Parks’s action because Parks failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing so. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Chief Financial Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc.







/s/ Eric T. Jones

DATE:  August 14, 2009

Eric R. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer and Chief Financial Accounting Officer





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







1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 27151-27152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12609]



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


UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Notice of Vote to Close Meeting
    By telephone vote on May 16-17, 1995, a majority of the members 
contacted and voting, the Board of Governors voted to add to the agenda 
of its June 5, 1995, meeting, closed to public observation, 
consideration of new international mail rates and services. (See 60 FR 
24673, May 9, 1995).
    The Board determined that pursuant to section 552b(c)(3) of Title 
5, United States Code, and section 7.3(c) of Title 39, Code of Federal 
Regulations, this portion of the meeting is exempt from the open 
meeting requirement of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 U.S.C. 
552b(b)] because it is likely to disclose information which is 
specifically exempted from disclosure by section 410(c)(2) of title 39, 
United States Code.
    The Board further determined that the public interest does not 
require that the Board's discussion of these matters be open to the 
public.
    In accordance with section 552b(f)(1) of Title 5, United States 
Code, and section 7.6(a) of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, the 
General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that 
in her opinion the meeting may properly be closed to public observation 
pursuant to section [[Page 27152]] 552b(c)(3) of Title 5, and section 
410(c)(2) of title 39, United States Code; and section 7.3(c) of Title 
39, Code of Federal Regulations.
    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to 
the Secretary of the Board, David F. Harris, at (202) 268-4800.
David F. Harris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12609 Filed 5-18-95; 3:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
John Edward KELLY, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-6901.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF POWERTEL  USA, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  NOVEMBER
30, 1996 , AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                               137 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        534
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                           48
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     738 
<PP&E>                                             7,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                       368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,066     
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            1
<COMMON>                                              16     
<OTHER-SE>                                         5,631   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7,590
<SALES>                                            1,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1,136
<CGS>                                                624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2,544 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,712                                     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (3,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (3,120) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (3,120)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.28)  

        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

November 14, 2004

Via EDGAR

**Securitiesand Exchange CommissionJudiciary Plaza450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549**

Re:      Certification pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MesaOffshore Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely asthe trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that toits knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Theabove certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed aspart of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
|        | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,  Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                   | /s/ MIKE ULRICH |
|   |                                                  | **Mike Ulrich*Vice President and Trust Officer*** |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Ron Hooper, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Bank of America, N.A. acts as Trustee;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trustcorpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;
4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), or forcausing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for theregistrant and I have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed undermy supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly reportmy conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date: November 8, 2004By:  /s/ Ron Hooper    Ron Hooper    Senior Vice President andTrust AdministratorBank of America, N.A.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 18, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00678-CV

IN RE RICHARD ALAN HAASE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

458th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCV-240399

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 14, 2023, relator Richard Alan Haase filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Chad 

Bridges, presiding judge of the 458th District Court of Fort Bend County, to
2

enforce a settlement agreement and, alternatively, to continue the trial setting, to 

order defense counsel to complete citation service, and to transfer venue. 

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Wilson.
Rudy Ed DORMEUS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6806.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27590-27591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12752]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Noise 
Certification Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory [[Page 27591]] Committee to discuss noise certification 
issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 21, 1995, at 9 a.m. Arrange for 
oral presentations by June 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association, suite 801, 1400 K Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carolina Forrester, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 
Rulemaking (ARM-206), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 267-9690; fax (202) 267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on June 21, 1995, at the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association, Suite 801, 1400 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The 
agenda will include:
    <bullet> Opening Remarks.
    <bullet> Committee administration.
    <bullet> Presentation of Work Plan by the FAR/JAR Harmonization 
Working Group for Helicopters.
    <bullet> Presentation of Work by the FAR/JAR Harmonization Working 
Group for Propeller-Driven Small Airplanes.
    <bullet> Status Report from the FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group 
for Subsonic Transport Category Large Airplanes and Subsonic Turbojet 
Powered Airplanes.
    <bullet> A discussion of future meeting dates, activities, and 
plans.
    <bullet> Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by June 7, 1995, 
to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present 
written statements to the Committee at any time by providing 25 copies 
to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to him at the 
meeting. In addition, sign and oral interpretation can be made 
available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if 
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. Arrangements may be made 
by contacting the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 1995.
Paul R. Dykeman,
Assistant Executive Director for Noise Certification Issues, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-12752 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Garry Victor FRASIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6968.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Anthony AKITI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10389.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 99.2
Annual Servicer's Certificate
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services55 Water StreetNew York, New York 10041Attention: Asset-Backed Surveillance Group
Fitch RatingsOne State Street PlazaNew York, New York 10004Attention:  Structured Finance
Moody's Investors Service Inc.99 Church StreetNew York, New York 10007Attention:  Structured Finance
Deutsche Bank Trust Company AmericasAttn: Peter Becker280 Park AvenueNew York, New York 10017
SLC Student Loan Trust-Ic/o Wilmington Trust CompanyRodney Square North, 1100 North Market StreetWilmington, Delaware 19890-0001Attention:  Corporate Trust Administration
 As an officer of The Student Loan Corporation, the Master Servicer of SLC Student LoanTrust-I, I hereby certify that: (a)a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision, and (b)to the best of my knowledge, based on such a review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout the period ended December 31, 2004, and there have been no known defaults in the fulfillment of such obligations.   
/s/ Daniel P. McHugh                                                                             March 31, 2005   Daniel P. McHugh                                                                                         DateChief Financial OfficerThe Student Loan Corporation, as Servicer
#### ARTHUR, Appellant, v. ATWELL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Daniel V. Arthur against Roy Atwell. W. R. Wilder, for appellant. N. G. Goldberger, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

CLARKE and LAMBERT, JJ., dissent.