alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7869

WILLIE J. HUFF, a/k/a Willie James Huff, a/k/a S Willie J. 

Huff,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-02058-PMD)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie J. Huff seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 standard 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 petition 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 Huff has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Huff’s motion to stay, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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 the Company.

Date: May 14, 2009

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH Fred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
#### David VELASQUEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 09-16891.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

David Velasquez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offlce of the California Attorney General, Monica Knox, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Warden Tom L. Carey appeals the district court’s order granting David Velasquez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction over the Warden’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant habeas relief, *Gonzalez v. Brown,*585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2009), and we reverse.

The district court’s decision was rendered without the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), which makes clear that “it is [of] no federal concern ... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” *Id.*at 863. Federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and the correct application of California’s “some evidence” standard is not mandated by the *330Federal Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 861. Where, as here, a state creates a protec-tible liberty interest in parole, due process requires only that the prisoner be afforded “an opportunity to be heard” and “provided a statement of reasons why parole was denied.” *Id.*at 862 (citing *Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex,*442 U.S. 1, 16, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979)). This is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” *Id.*

Velasquez had an opportunity to be heard and to contest the evidence against him at his parole hearing before the Board of Prison Terms, and the Governor — after considering the same evidence that was before the Board — provided written reasons for reversing the Board’s finding that Velasquez was eligible for parole. Furthermore, the Governor was not required, as a matter of federal due process, to hold a second suitability hearing before reversing the Board’s decision. *Styre v. Adams,*No. 09-15782, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108-09, 2011 WL 2176465, at * 1-2 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011). Therefore, even if the state court misapplied the “some evidence” standard, Velasquez’s due process rights were not violated. *See Cooke,*131 S.Ct. at 862-63; *see also Pearson v. Muntz,*639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011) *(“Cooke*makes clear that we cannot consider whether ‘some evidence’ of dangerousness supported a denial of parole on a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”).

REVERSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Richardson, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered October 6, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether certain enumerated errors contained in the trial court’s charge to the jury deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Upon a review of the record, we find that none of these errors, viewed either singly or cumulatively, warrants reversal.

The mere fact that this trial, like most trials, was not without blemishes and failings does not mean that it was unfair *(see, People v Garcia,*72 AD2d 356, 360, *affd*52 NY2d *826716). Although the trial court’s charge contained some improper instructions and phrases which have been disapproved of by this court on prior occasions, it is evident that the jury, after hearing the entire charge, could gather from its language the correct rules to apply in arriving at its decision *(see, People v Russell,*266 NY 147, 153; *People v Ortiz,*92 AD2d 595; *People v Gardner,*59 AD2d 913). "[Cjonvictions are not to be set aside because, on reflection in tranquility, better charges could have been composed” *(People v Yanik,*43 NY2d 97, 100). In view of the overwhemling evidence of guilt, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anonymous, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered on or about May 19, 2009, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
February 19, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF A .A.J.C., A CHILD

,

NO. 14

- 14

- 00998

- CV

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on September 5, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We fur ther order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 99.2

                            ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

     I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,
Brunswick Corporation Note-Backed Series 2002-3 Trust (the "Trust"), certify
that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
         servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
         omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
         in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
         not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
         provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
         under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion in
         such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee
         under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my
         knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has
         fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.



Date: March 29, 2004


       /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President



                                      8
##### 






Exhibit 99.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Greg Kenepp, President 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, 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.

| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
|
| | By: /s/ Greg Kenepp               
| |                                   
| | Greg Kenepp
President
June 6, 2003
|

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC
Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Pam J. Halter, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.

2.   Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to
     make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such
     statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this annual report.

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information included in this annual report,  fairly present in all material
     respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
          disclosure   controls  and   procedures  to  be  designed   under  our
          supervision,  to ensure  that  material  information  relating  to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us
          by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the period in
          which this annual report is being prepared;

     b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's  disclosure  controls and
          procedures  and  presented  in this report our  conclusions  about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.

5.   I have disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  that  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls.

Date:  July 3, 2007               /s/ Pam J. Halter
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Pam J. Halter
                                    Vice President
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 14.12 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
16th, 2004 on the financial statements of Companhia Nipo-Brasileira de Pelotização 
NIBRASCO, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year
ended December 31st, 2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30th, 2005
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**               **American**      **Achievement Group**      **Holding Corp.**  **AAC Group Holding Corp.**   **Fiscal Year Ended**  **Fiscal Year Ended**   **August 26, 2006**  **August 26, 2006**  **August 27, 2005** Net income (loss) before incometaxes $3,192  $8,277  $3,550              Fixed charges: (1)Interest charges  39,331   34,246   31,271 Interest portion of lease expense  683   683   829                        Total fixed charges  40,014   34,929   32,100 Net income from operationsbefore income taxes and fixedcharges $43,206  $43,206  $35,650                        Ratio of earnings to fixedcharges (2)  1.08x  1.24x  1.11x                    **American Achievement Corporation**           **For the Period Ended**   **For the Period Ended**   **Fiscal Year Ended**  **March 26, 2004 —**   **August 31, 2003 —**   **August 26, 2006**  **August 27, 2005**  **August 28, 2004**   **March 25, 2004** Net income (loss) before incometaxes $19,234  $11,324  $10,925   $(4,583)                  Fixed charges: (1)Interest charges  23,289   23,497   10,257    16,455 Interest portion of lease expense  683   829   352    626                                 Total fixed charges  23,972   24,326   10,609    17,081 Net income from operationsbefore income taxes and fixedcharges $43,206  $35,650  $21,534   $12,498                                 Ratio of earnings to fixedcharges:(2)  1.80x  1.47x  2.03x   —  (1) During the periods presented the Company had no preferred stockoutstanding that required a cash payment. Therefore, the ratio ofearnings to combined fixed charges and preferred dividends wasthe same as the ratio of earnings to fixed charges for each ofthe periods presented. (2) For purposes of computing this ratio, earnings consist of income(loss) before taxes on income and fixed charges. Fixed chargesconsist of interest expense, amortization of deferred debtissuance costs and the portion of rental expense that includes aninterest factor. Earnings before fixed charges were insufficientto cover fixed charges by approximately $4.6 million for theperiod from August 31, 2003 to March 25, 2004.
#### GILMARTIN, Respondent, v. BUCHANAN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by George E. Gilmartin against Andrew B. Buchanan and another.

No opinion. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GESPA NICARAGUA, S.A.,

Appellant,

v.

RECOM AG, FLEXTRONICS 

INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., 

FLEXTRONICS AUTOMOTIVE USA 

(TEXAS), LLC, and EXPEDITORS 

INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, 

INC.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00244-CV

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018-DCV-4112)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the trial court’s judgment 

should be affirmed in part and reversed in part. We reverse the trial court’s June 22, 2022, judgment 

dismissing Appellant’s claims against Appellee Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. In 

all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed. We remand this cause to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

We further order that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### Lake Ontario Production Credit Association of *987Rochester, Appellant, v Chester S. Grove et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted, and case restored to the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Court Calendar in the position it would have been but for the transfer. Memorandum: Plaintiff seeks damages for conversion of collateral which secured a debt owed to plaintiff by defendants. The collateral consists of 12 Holstein cows which plaintiff alleges that defendant Walck, with the assistance of defendant Hogan, sold to defendant Milleville for $10,000 without plaintiff’s consent and in violation of plaintiff’s security interest in the cows.

The court erred in transferring this matter from Supreme Court to Lockport City Court. A case may be transferred without consent of the parties only when "the damages are *determined*to be insufficient to justify retention of the matter in Supreme or County Court” (22 NYCRR 1024.20 [a]; emphasis added; *see also,*CPLR 325 [d]). Such determination was not made here. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is fixed at $10,000, which exceeds the $6,000 limit of Lockport City Court (Lock-port City Charter § 324 [8]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Wolf, Jr., J. — venue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00507

- CR

Carl Roberson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F

- 2013

- 1844

- D)

Feb ruary 26 , 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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/ James HennenJames HennenSenior Vice President of Finance andChief Financial OfficerApril 14, 2011
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Young Innovations, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-61572, 333-65673 and 333-57742) on Form S-8 of Young Innovations, Inc. of our reports dated March 3, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Young Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Young Innovations, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 3, 2006