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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JESUS GARCIA-PENA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00035-JPB-DJJ-1) 

Submitted: August 18, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States 

Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jesus Garcia-Pena pleaded guilty to illegal reentry 

after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated 

felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). 

Garcia-Pena was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment, 

followed by three years of supervised release, and now appeals. 

His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal. Garcia-Pena was informed 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do 

so. We affirm. 

 In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the 

district court erred in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty plea as 

knowing and voluntary. Because Garcia-Pena did not move in the 

district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Furthermore, there is a strong presumption that a defendant’s 

guilty plea is binding and voluntary if he has received an 

adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. United States v. Puckett, 

61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); see Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (finding that statements made during a 

plea hearing “carry a strong presumption of verity”). Our 

review of the record discloses that the district court fully 

2 
3 

complied with Rule 11. We conclude, therefore, that the 

district court did not err in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty 

plea. 

 We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Garcia-Pena, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Garcia-Pena requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Garcia-Pena. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5912 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5912

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 313 East Main Street in Robstown, Texas, as the ``Lieutenant Juan G. 
                    Carrion Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2010

  Mr. Ortiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 313 East Main Street in Robstown, Texas, as the ``Lieutenant Juan G. 
                    Carrion Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT JUAN G. CARRION POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 313 East Main Street in Robstown, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lieutenant Juan G. Carrion Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Juan G. Carrion Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

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 Capital
Growth Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I,
George A. King, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 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.

Dated: March 31, 2010



By:

/s/ Patrick C. ShuttPatrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ George A. KingGeorge A. King, Interim Chief Financial Officer


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.

The foregoing certification is
being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K, Amendment Number 2,  for the period ending December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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,
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/ Rik
      J. DeitschRik
      J. DeitschChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      April 8, 2010





This
certification accompanies this 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 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.




A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

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

Each of the
undersigned  hereby  certifies,  in his capacity as an officer of Gene Logic Inc.  (the
Company),  for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

- The Quarterly  report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended  March 31, 2005 fully complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The  information  contained  in
such  report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|Date: | May 10,
      2005 | By: | /s/
      Mark D. Gessler
|----- | ------------------ | --- | -------------------------
|      |                    |     |                          
|      |                    |     | Mark D. Gessler          
|      |                    |     | Chief Executive Officer  

|Date: | May 10,
      2005 | By: | /s/
      Philip L. Rohrer, Jr.
|----- | ------------------ | --- | -------------------------------
|      |                    |     |                                
|      |                    |     | Philip L. Rohrer,
      Jr.    
|      |                    |     | Chief Financial Officer        

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 01-272

ANTHONY D'ANGELO, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and STEINBERG and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

On June 18, 2002, the Court, in a single-judge order, denied the appellant's application for

attorney fees and expenses filed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d). On July 9, 2002, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative,

a motion for a panel decision. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the parties' prior pleadings, it is 

ORDERED by the single judge that the appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied. It

is further 

ORDERED by the panel that the appellant's motion for a panel decision is denied. 

DATED: October 17, 2002 PER CURIAM.

STEINBERG, Judge, dissenting: I voted to grant the appellant's application for a panel

decision, and did so for the same two reasons set forth in my dissenting statement to the Court's

recent order denying a motion for a panel decision in Johannes v. Principi, No. 01-634, __ Vet.App.

__, 2002 WL 31165091 (per curiam order) (Vet.App. Sept. 25, 2002) (Steinberg, J., dissenting). 

In the instant case, the Board stated in full regarding the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of

2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA), as follows:

Regarding the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date than

May 10, 1993, for service connection for diabetes mellitus, all

relevant facts have been properly developed and no further assistance

to the veteran is required in order to comply with the duty to assist.

See Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475,

§ 3(a), 114 Stat. 2096, __ (2000) (to be codified as amended at

38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A). 

. . . .
2

Asthe preponderance ofthe evidence is against the claim, the benefitof-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for an effective

date earlier than May 10, 1993, for the grant of service connection for

diabetes mellitus must be denied. See Veterans Claims Assistance

Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, § 3(a), 114 Stat. 2096, __ (2000)

(to be codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)[)]. 

Record (R.) at 6-8. The parties' May 18, 2001, joint motion for remand in the instant case contained

the same language as quoted in my Johannes dissent; in both cases, the Secretary conceded that the

Board erred under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a) and 7104(d)(1). Johannes, __Vet.App.__, 2002 WL at

* 2-3. As in Johannes, I do not see how the Secretary can be found to be substantially justified in

the administrative position taken by the Board, given the very fundamental nature of the Board's

error, and I believe that Cycholl v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 355, 360 (2001), and the cases it relied

upon, apply here rather than Smith (Shannon) v. Principi, 16 Vet.App 261 (2002).
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10924

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AGUSTIN GUERRERO, also known as

Carlos Melendez Perez;

SERGIO TREVINO,

Defendants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:99-CR-75-1(R))

 

December 8, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
Exhibit 13.2

CHINA MOBILE LIMITED

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, XUE Taohai, Executive Director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of China Mobile Limited
(the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 23, 2009



/s/    XUE TaohaiName:

XUE TaohaiTitle:

Executive Director, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5873 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5873

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain 
                    Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN RHETT W. SCHILLER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A. DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 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.




Date: August 14, 2012












/s/ John A. Di Bella


John A. Di Bella


Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### JONES v. LEONARD et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Trusts—Validity—Authorizing Trustee to Use Fund.

A provision, in a bequest in trust, that the trustee may apply such portion of the trust fund to his personal use as he may And necessary, does not abolish the trust.

Appeal'from special term, Kings county.

Action by Daniel S. Jones against Edward J. Newell, as administrator with the will annexed of Bridget Callahan, deceased, and Annie Leonard, as administratrix of Patrick D. Callahan, deceased, and others, to compel payment of a judgment held by plaintiff out • of the property left by Bridget Callahan, deceased. 'From a judgment which determined that defendants Annie Leonard and others were not entitled to any interest in the estate left by Bridget Callahan, deceased, and dismissing their claim against the estate, they appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BBOWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

John M. Zurn, for appellants.

Olcott & Olcott (W. M. K. Olcott, of counsel), for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The appellants contend, upon the authority of Floyd v. Fitcher, 38 Barb. 409, and other cases, that the bequest of personal property to Callahan, with a limitation over to his daughter, vested in him the whole estate, and that the limitation over was void for repugnancy. However this may have been had the bequest been to him primarily for his own benefit, and without the sugges*907tion of a trust, it is not necessary to determine, for the bequest is made to Callahan, “in trust, however, and for the benefit” of the daughter. Appellant’s counsel argue with great ingenuity that the permission given the trustee to apply such portion of the trust fund to his personal use as he might find necessary, without accountability, was equivalent to an abolition of the trust. We do not think this can be held. The testator cannot be supposed to have contemplated that the confidence would be abused, and, if not abused, the trust was not endangered, as the result well illustrates. On the whole case we are of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed, but without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                             545
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,184
<INVENTORY>                                      4,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,640
<PP&E>                                          50,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,447
<BONDS>                                        146,236
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,011
<SALES>                                         33,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,902
<CGS>                                           10,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    32
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   309
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (8)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,530
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           529
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,059)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>