alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marco Pedro LEMUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MEDIUM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-8103.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 16, 2012.

Marco Pedro Lemus, Rawlins, WY, pro se.

*Jenny Lynn*Craig, Leda M. Pojman, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. In 2005, a Wyoming jury convicted Petitioner of felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The Wyoming Supreme *817Court affirmed his convictions on July 17, 2007. *Lemus v. State,*162 P.3d 497, 499 (Wyo.2007). Almost four years later, Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 petition, in which he raised claims relating to various evidentiary rulings by the trial court, the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements, the denial of his request for a change of venue, the jury selection process, and the effectiveness of his appellate counsel. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely.

In his request for a certificate of appeal-ability, Petitioner argues the district court should have equitably tolled his untimely claims because his delay in filing the habe-as petition was caused by his limited education, ignorance of the law, and limited access to a law library and legal materials. He also argues he showed due diligence in attempting to pursue his federal claims because in 2008 he mistakenly attempted to appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision directly to this court.

After thoroughly reviewing the record and Petitioner’s filings on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition on timeliness grounds. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 478, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Petitioner has simply not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling under our precedents. *See, e.g., Yang v. Archuleta,*525 F.3d 925, 929-30 (10th Cir.2008); *Gibson v. Klinger,*232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir.2000). Therefore, for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 104 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 104

    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
            Resources in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2009

 Mr. Rahall (for himself and Mr. Hastings of Washington) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
            Resources in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Natural Resources (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $16,660,489 for the One Hundred 
Eleventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $8,127,068 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2009, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2010; and
            (2) not more than $8,533,421 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2011.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
<Page>

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 13 to Registration Statement No. 333-20343 of Separate Account A of Union
Security Life Insurance Company of New York (formerly First Fortis Life
Insurance Company), on Form N-4, of our report dated February 24, 2005,
relating to the statements of assets and liabilities of Separate Account A as
of December 31, 2004, and the related statements of operations for the year
then ended and the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two
years in the period ended December 31, 2004, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is incorporated by reference in such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 21, 2005
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


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011 of Castmor Resources Ltd. (the "Issuer").
The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.


Date: June 24, 2011

By /s/ Alfonso Quijada
Alfonso Quijada
Chief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 31(b)

I, Mark R. Bachmann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zep Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e), 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 registrant, 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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 9, 2008



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been
provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

NITA ALMUETE PADDIT PALMA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50120

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01486-RGK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Nita Almuete Paddit Palma appeals from her jury-trial conviction and

42-month sentence for two counts of illegal remunerations, in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Palma’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

FILED

JUL 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50120

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Palma

with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental

brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.
S07Y0382.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROBERT JOHNSON II.

(641 SE2d 535)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on two reports of the special master, recommending that the Court accept Eric Robert Johnson II’s petitions for voluntary discipline, impose a 30-day suspension, and two public reprimands, and require full refund of fees that were accepted from clients under circumstances that constituted a violation of Rules 8.4 (a) (4) (State Bar Docket # 5057) and 3.3 (a) (4) (State Bar Docket # 5058) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

*675Decided February 26, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Rebecca A. Hall, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

With respect to State Bar Docket # 5057, the State Bar filed a formal complaint seeking disbarment, and Johnson subsequently filed two petitions for voluntary discipline, the second of which the State Bar supported. Based on the admissions in that petition, the special master found that Johnson was admitted to the Bar in 2003. In March 2005 Johnson was working as an assistant public defender in DeKalb County, but represented two clients in separate criminal matters in DeKalb Recorders Court and accepted payments from both. He failed to inform either client that she might be eligible for a court-appointed public defender or inform the judges hearing the matters that he was appearing in a private capacity rather than in his usual role as public defender. Finally, he failed to inform his superiors at the Public Defender’s Office of the representations, in violation of office policy. Johnson admits that he should not have engaged in these actions. He was terminated from his employment because of these actions.

With respect to State Bar Docket # 5058 the special master concluded that a violation of Rule 3.3 (a) (4) had been shown by Johnson’s admission that he took no remedial measures after learning that a client had testified falsely.

The Special Master concluded that the conduct constitutes a violation of Rules 8.4 (a) (4) and 3.3 (a) (4), but also found as mitigating factors that Johnson cooperated with the disciplinary authorities and has no prior disciplinary history.

Having reviewed the record, we concur with the special master’s recommendation and hereby order that in connection with State Bar Docket # 5057, Johnson be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, he receive a public reprimand, and that his reinstatement be conditioned upon his providing the State Bar with proof that he has refunded to both clients the fees received. With respect to State Bar Docket # 5058, we hereby order that Johnson receive a public reprimand. Johnson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Thirty-day suspension with conditions and public reprimand.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.23

                           Investor Information Page
                           -------------------------

                                Charles M. Handy
                                ----------------
                                                                    Number of
                           Percentage %         Number of           Offered OP
Name of Entity              Ownership         Cash Value ($)          Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cogdell Investors             2.05                81,762               4,448
(Birkdale), LLC

Cogdell Investors             2.09                20,378               1,109
(Birkdale II), LLC

Cogdell Investors             4.08               102,616               5,583
(Mallard), LLC

Barclay Downs                 1.84                44,021               2,395
Associates, LLC

Copperfield MOB,              0.15                 5,957                 325
LLC

Rowan OSC                     0.30                 5,169                 282
Investors, LLC

West Medical                  1.83                34,637               1,885
Office I, LLC








<PAGE>
                           Investor Information Page
                           -------------------------

                               Randolph D. Smoak
                               -----------------
                                                            Number of
                     Percentage (%)                         Offered OP
Name of Entity         Ownership         Cash Value ($)        Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Orangeburg              4.1033              107,466             5,847
Medical Office B
Building General
Partnership
**Supplement to**
##### 



|                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|AMENDED AND RESTATED ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Exhibit 10.11                                                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and St. Catharines Standard Group Inc.             
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and Brantford Expositor Group Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and Flamborough Review Newspaper Inc.              
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and Niagara Newspaper Group Inc.                   
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and Peninsula Newspaper Group Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                             
|Amended and Restated Electronic Distribution Agreement, dated February 14,
2003, between Infomart Limited and Southern Ontario Community Newspaper Group
Inc.
|
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **11** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Thorn        Apple Valley, Inc.** |
|--|--------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 1/28/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **12** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Henry's        Hickory House** |
|--|-----------------------------------|

| DATE: | 1/23/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **13** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Wright        Brand Foods, Inc.** |
|--|--------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 1/28/98 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 2 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of Fidelity Aviation Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), I, John Schoenauer, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/John SchoenauerJohn Schoenauer, Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2008
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-30106

(Summary Calendar)

 

IN THE MATTER OF: RAOUL A. GALAN, JR.,

 Debtor.

RAOUL A. GALAN, JR.,

 Appellant,

versus

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, As Successor to

Merchants Trust and Savings Bank,

 Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CA-94-2709-R)

 

June 16, 1995

Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appeal filed in this case by Appellant Raoul A. Galan, Jr.

is wholly lacking in merit and frivolous as a matter of law, and
2

is, therefore, DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 42.2. The Clerk of

this court shall not accept any pleadings or other filings from or

on behalf of appellant without prior authority from a member of

this court; and appellant is cautioned that any attempt to file

pleadings or other documents that are frivolous in nature shall

result in appropriate sanctions which may include, without

limitation, double costs, attorneys fees, fines, and contempt of

court.