alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20616 

USDC No. CA-H-92-2191

__________________

JAMES D. HARRIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NOLA J. HALL; R.G. BELANGER; A. SCHRAM; T.L. MASSEY;

DAVID DOUGHTY; B.J. GOMEZS; A. DYER; ROBERT STUBER;

L.L. BREWER; H.L. MOSKOWITZ; BRADLE BACHMAN;

UNKNOWN WOODSHOP SUPERVISOR; S. DOUTY; RICHARD JOYNER,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

March 7, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James D. Harris seeks in forma pauperis (IFP) status to

appeal the district court's dismissal of his civil rights

complaint. Harris charges that various defendants 

(1) negligently dispensed prescription medication; (2) failed to

protect him by removing a nurse from the prison pill window when

it was learned that she had made an error in dispensing

medication; (3) made him wait two days for medical treatment for 
No. 95-20616

-2-

a swollen wrist; and (4) refused to call a witness at a prison

disciplinary hearing in reliance on wrongful information from

Harris's counsel substitute. Harris also argues that the

district court erred by determining that his counsel substitute

did not act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, we DENY the

motion for IFP because this appeal does not involve legal points

arguable on their merits. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811

F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, the appeal is frivolous and

subject to dismissal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Harris that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Harris is further

cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been

previously decided by this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 this Yearly Report of Goldspring, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Cook,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


April 5, 2004                                    /s/ John Cook
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     John Cook
                                                     Principal Executive Officer


                                                                              27
Filed 7/22/16 P. v. Karim CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHONTA JOWARN KARIM,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B269612

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA044780)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Scott T. Millington, Judge. Affirmed. 

Lisa M. Sciandra, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________
2

Shonta Jowarn Karim appeals from the order denying his petition to recall his 

sentence under Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.)

1

 His appointed counsel filed a 

no-issue brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant of his 

right to respond, but received no response. 

Appellant is serving a 35-year-to-life sentence for two counts of attempted seconddegree robbery (§§ 664, 211) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (former 

§ 12021, now § 29800). None of these sections is listed in section 1170.18, subdivision 

(a), which makes misdemeanor resentencing available to “[a] person currently serving a 

sentence for a conviction” under “[s]ections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of the Health and 

Safety Code, or [s]ection 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code.” 

Having reviewed the record on appeal, we find no arguable issues. (People v. 

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J. COLLINS, J.

 

1

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
#### *In re*PASTRNAK, Thomas J.

(MR 21771)

Davenport, IA

Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 763 is allowed, and respondent Thomas J. Pastmak, who has been disciplined in the State of Iowa, is reprimanded in the State of Illinois.
Filed 7/22/16 P. v. Karim CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR



### THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHONTA JO WARN KARIM

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 2 6 9612

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. YA044780 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Scott T. Millington , Judge. Affirmed

.

Lisa M. Sciandra , under appoint ment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________2

Shonta Jowarn Karim appeals from the order denying his petition to recall his

sentence under Proposition 47. (Pen. Co de, § 1170.18

. ) 1 His appoin ted counsel filed a

no

- issue brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436

. We notified appellant of his

right to respond, but received no response.

Appellant is serving a 35

- year

- to

- life sentence for two counts of attemp ted second

degree robbery (§§ 664 , 211 ) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (f or mer

§ 12021, now § 29800). None of these sections is listed in s ection 1170.18, subdivision

(a), which makes m isdemeanor resentencing available to “[a] person currently serving a

sentence for a conviction” under “ [s] ections 11350, 11357, or 11377 of the Health and

Safety Code, or [s] ection 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, or 666 of the Penal Code.”

Having reviewed the record on appeal , we find no arguable issues. ( People v.

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 .)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J. COLLINS , J.

1 Undesignated s tatutory references are to the Penal Code.
Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Second Department,

October, 1987

(October 5, 1987)

#### American Standard, Inc., Union Switch and Signal Division, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated *596February 28, 1986, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action of the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A contractor may enter into an agreement with a subcontractor to liquidate any liability that it might have to the latter for delay damages caused by the owner in the amount which could be recovered in a lawsuit brought in the contractor’s name against the owner *(see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp.,*117 AD2d 227, 231; *Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth.,*61 AD2d 953, 954). In a case such as this, where an admission of liability by the plaintiff contractor is clearly implicit in the liquidation agreement, suit against the owner may be prosecuted in the contractor’s name, even though no damages have been suffered directly by the contractor *(see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra; Simmons Co. v United States,*304 F2d 886, 890; *but cf., Mars Assocs. v New York City Educ. Constr. Fund,*126 AD2d 178, 192). Moreover, such a suit can be brought in the plaintiff contractor’s name even though the subcontractor is made primarily responsible for prosecuting this action and bearing the costs of the litigation *(see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra).*Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action in the complaint was properly denied.

The defendants concede that the issue of whether they were shielded from liability for delay damages by the exculpatory provisions in the contract with the plaintiff was not raised before the court of first instance and is thus not properly before this court on appeal *(see, Lavine v Lavine,*127 AD2d 566; *Risucci v Homayoon,*122 AD2d 260). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Veaudry, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After executing a waiver of indictment, defendant entered a guilty plea to a superior court information which charged him with attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The waiver contained a provision that defendant waived his right to appeal from any judgment of conviction under the superior court information.

Defendant contends that the waiver of his right to appeal is ineffective because it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. We agree. Waiver is the intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right and knowledge and intent are essential elements *(People v Cox,*71 AD2d 798). The record fails to disclose any inquiry by the court from which we could determine that the defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal.

Defendant further contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude, however, that the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, when viewed in their totality at the time of the representation, reveal that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799; *People v Lane,*60 NY2d 748, 750; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. —attempted criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12. 2
 
       (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 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;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Seiji EnamiSeiji EnamiDirector
and Chief Financial Officer
# CE2010087EN.01033701.xml

| 1.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 87/337 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 87/337

---

Wednesday 11 March 2009Common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) ***III

P6_TA(2009)0105

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 March 2009 on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) (PE-CONS 3719/2008 – C6-0042/2009 – 2005/0237A(COD))

2010/C 87 E/53

(Codecision procedure: third reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 3719/2008 – C6-0042/2009),

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0587),

1

having regard to its position at second reading (2) on the Council common position (3),

2

3

having regard to the Commission's opinion on Parliament's amendments to the common position (COM(2008)0828),

having regard to Article 251(5) of the EC Treaty,

having regard to Rule 65 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee (A6-0097/2009),

| 1. | Approves the joint text; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the joint text;

| 2. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

| 3. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

Official Journal of the European Union

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 74 E, 20.3.2008, p. 632.

1

(2)  Texts adopted, 24.9.2008, P6_TA(2008)0447.

2

(3)  OJ C 184 E, 22.7.2008, p. 11.

3

---
#### In the Matter of Herald Company, et al., Respondents, v James C. Tormey, III, Individually and as a Judge of the City Court of the City of Syracuse, et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in memorandum decision at Supreme Court, Lowery, J. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lowery, Jr., J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ. *[See,*142 Misc 2d 675.]
(85 South. 452)

#### PUCKETT et al. v. STATE.

(1 Div. 151.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 14, 1920.)

Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;246 — Automobile used without consent of owner not to be condemned.

Where it is shown by the owner, in a proceeding by the state under Act Jan. 25, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 13) § 13, to condemn an automobile used by the owner’s chauffeur for the unlawful transportation of prohibited liquor, that he neither authorized, participated in, nor consented to the,unlawful act of his servant, and that he was guilty of no negligence with respect to its anticipation or prevention, a condemnation of the vehicle cannot be sustained.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney, Judge.

Proceeding by the State to condemn an automobile used by Walter E. Puckett’s chauffeur for the unlawful transportation of prohibited liquors. From a decree of condemnation,

Walter E. Puckett and others appeal.

Decree reversed and rendered as to claimant Puckett.

Inge & ICilborn, of Mobile, for appellants.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE, J.

This is a proceeding by the state to condemn an automobile used by the claimant’s chauffeur for the unlawful transportation of prohibited liquor in the city of Mobile, under section 13 of the act of January 25, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 13).

We have carefully examined the evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions. There is no conflict in the evidence, and therefore no question as to the veracity of the witnesses. Construing the evidence in its every aspect most favorably for the state, we are satisfied that the automobile in question is not properly subject to condemnation as against its claimant and owner, Puckett, and that the decree of condemnation ought not to stand. Where it is shown by the owner that he neither authorized, participated in, nor consented to the unlawful act of his servant, and that he was guilty of no negligence with respect to its anticipation and prevention, the condemnation of the vehicle cannot be sustained. State v. Hughes, 203 Ala. 90, 82 South. 104. In the cases of State v. One *239Lexington Automobile, 203 Ala. 506, 84 South. 297, and State v. Crosswhite, 203 Ala. 586, 84 South. 813, decided at this term, and in which condemnation was held proper, the evidence gave support to the inference of a want of reasonable diligence in discovering and preventing the unlawful use of the car.

Let the decree be reversed, in so far as it condemns the interest of the claimant, Puckett, to sale and forfeiture, and let a decree be here rendered in favor of said claimant.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

(&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
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
on Form 10-Q of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald W. Johnston, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to his knowledge:







1.
            This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended.






2.
            The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  May
      11, 2009
            /s/
      Ronald W. JohnstonRonald
      W. JohnstonChief
      Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05733-SAS     Document 13      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 1 of 1
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Jay M. Meilstrup

Jay M. MeilstrupChief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2006
 24
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6217 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 with respect to 

levee certifications, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Mr. WALZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

with respect to levee certifications, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECH4 NICAL SERVICES. 

5 Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act 

6 of 2000 (31 U.S.C. 6505 note) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(f) LEVEE CERTIFICATIONS.—The requirements of 

9 this section do not apply to activities conducted by the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6217 IH

1 Corps of Engineers to evaluate a levee system that was 

2 designed or constructed by the Corps if the activities— 

3 ‘‘(1) are conducted at the request of a State or 

4 local government; and 

5 ‘‘(2) the State or local government agrees to re6 imburse the Corps for all costs associated with the 

7 performance of the activities.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### *In re*KAPLAN, Stanley F.

(MR 21705)

Northbrook, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent Stanley F. Kaplan is suspended from the practice of law for 60 days. Suspension effective October 9, 2007. Respondent Stanley F. Kaplan shall reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.