alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04365-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/05/2008 Page 20 of 20
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Bernard Briskin, Chief Executive Officer of Arden Group, Inc., aDelaware corporation (Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 thatto the best of my knowledge (1) the annual report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (Report), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   | /s/BERNARD BRISKIN      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Bernard Briskin         |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | March 9, 2006           |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 78 

To authorize additional appropriations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

to enhance its ability to more effectively stop mortgage fraud, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. BIGGERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize additional appropriations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to enhance its ability to more effectively stop mortgage fraud, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Mortgage Fraud 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 For fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, 

8 there are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney 

9 General a total of— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 78 IH

1 (1) $31,250,000 to support the employment of 

2 30 additional agents of the Federal Bureau of Inves3 tigation and 2 additional dedicated prosecutors at 

4 the Department of Justice to coordinate prosecution 

5 of mortgage fraud efforts with the offices of the 

6 United States Attorneys; and 

7 (2) $750,000 to support the operations of inter8 agency task forces of the Federal Bureau of Inves9 tigation in the areas with the 15 highest concentra10 tions of mortgage fraud. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY TURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-16; CA-03-98-7-JPG) Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Turley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnny Turley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Turley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden; CAROLE 

HYMAN, Chaplain at San Quentin Prison, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15994 

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-04649-YGR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, 

Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for 

publication and is not precedent except as 

provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this 

case is suitable for decision without oral 

FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15994 

Before:SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, 

Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Douglas Daniel 

Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising 

from the denial of Clark’s entry into a kosher 

diet program. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district 

court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. ASARCO, 

LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 

 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 16-15994 

(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s 

claims seeking injunctive relief because Clark is 

now a member of the kosher diet program, 

rendering his claim moot. See NASD Dispute 

Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal., 488 

F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A case is 

moot on appeal if no live controversy remains at 

the time the court of appeals hears the case.”). 

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s

claims seeking declaratory relief and monetary 

damages as barred by the doctrine of res 
4 16-15994 

judicata because Clark has previously litigated 

the same claims in a California state habeas 

proceeding against the same parties or their 

privies. See Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 

739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned 

denials of California habeas petitions have claim 

preclusive effect on civil litigation); Adam Bros. 

Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 

F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting 

forth elements of claim preclusion under 

California law and explaining that California’s 

doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a 
5 16-15994 

primary rights theory). 

To the extent Clark claims legal error in the 

California state habeas proceeding, the RookerFeldman doctrine bars any such claim. See 

Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1155-57 (9th Cir. 

2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto 

appeal of a state court decision).

We do not consider the district court’s 

denial of Clark’s post-judgment motion because 

Clark never filed a new or amended notice of 

appeal after the district court denied his motion. 

See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 
6 16-15994 

n.1 (9th Cir. 2017).

We reject as without merit Clark’s 

contentions regarding judicial misconduct and 

fraud upon the court. 

Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket 

Entry No. 26) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21135 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VALENTIN RODRIGUEZ VENCES, also known as Flaco, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-575-3

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Valentin Rodriguez Vences has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the briefs, Rodriguez Vences’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Counsel’sNo. 03-21135 -2- request that Rodriguez Vences be permitted to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED.
Clear All

        11 March 2024    

                    U.S. Army Assault Helicopters Conduct Deck Landings on USNS Dahl                 
                Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 2nd Aviation Regiment, 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade (2-2 CAB) conducted deck landings with U.S. Army UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters on prepositioning ship USNS Dahl (T-AKR 312), March 7.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1601 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1601

   To allow States to elect to observe daylight savings time for the 
             duration of the year, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2019

Mr. Bishop of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow States to elect to observe daylight savings time for the 
             duration of the year, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Daylight Act''.

SEC. 2. OPTIONAL YEAR-LONG APPLICATION OF DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME.

    Section 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or may by law apply the advancement of 
        time described in this section for the duration of the year,'' 
        after ``may by law exempt itself from the provisions of this 
        subsection providing for the advancement of time,'';
            (2) by striking ``the standard time otherwise applicable 
        during that period'' and inserting ``the same standard time'';
            (3) by striking ``may by law exempt either the entire State 
        as provided in (1) or'' and inserting ``, by law, may apply 
        either standard time provided for in paragraph (1) to the 
        entire State,''; and
            (4) by inserting ``, or may apply the advancement of time 
        for the duration of the year to the entire area of the State 
        lying within any time zone'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF XTRA CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,000,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              130,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                14,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   2,266,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             827,000,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,573,000,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    852,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 331,000,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,573,000,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           464,000,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              348,000,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          58,000,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             58,000,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                23,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         35,000,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                35,000,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49


</TABLE>
# CE2010087EN.01018901.xml

| 1.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 87/189 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 87/189

---

Tuesday 10 March 2009Additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU ***

P6_TA(2009)0084

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the additional protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (16447/2008 - COM(2008)0749 – C6-0017/2009 – 2008/0212(AVC))

2010/C 87 E/43

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

having regard to the text of the Council (16447/2008),

having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Articles 310 and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (C6-0017/2009),

having regard to Rules 75 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Development (A6-0073/2009),

| 1. | Gives its assent to conclusion of the additional protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its assent to conclusion of the additional protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05726-PKC Document 12 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05726-PKC Document 12 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32**

**Section1350 Certification**

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Oakridge Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

TheForm 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2007 (the “Form 10-KSB”) ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Exchange Act and the information contained in the Form10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthe Form 10-KSB.
| Date: May 29, 2007 |   | /s/ Sandra Pautsky                 |
|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|               |   | Sandra Pautsky, President and      |
|               |   |  Principal  Executive Officer |
|               |   |  of Oakridge  Energy, Inc.    |
|               |   |                               |
| Date: May 29, 2007 |   | /s/ Carol J. Cooper                |
|               |   | Carol J. Cooper, Principal         |
|               |   |  Financial  Officer of        |
|               |   |  Oakridge  Energy, Inc.       |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32)of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode) and accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andis not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

----
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Terry Polistina, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 of Applica Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
               a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
               b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
               c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
               a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
               b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: March 11, 2005 /s/ Terry Polistina  Name: Terry Polistina  Title: Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President  
-29-
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

Statement Pursuant to Section 1350(a) of title 18, United States Code

The undersigned, Paul R. D'Aloia and Robert W. Lafferty, certify that:

1.       The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Huffy Corporation (the "Company") for
         the Years Ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K"), which is being
         filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
         Exchange Act of 1934.

2.       The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

March 5, 2004                                        /s/  Paul R. D'Aloia
-----------------------------                        ---------------------------
Date                                                 Paul R. D'Aloia
                                                     Chief Executive Officer,
                                                     Huffy Corporation

March 5, 2004                                        /s/ Robert W. Lafferty
-----------------------------                        ---------------------------
Date                                                 Robert W. Lafferty
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     Huffy Corporation

                                       62