alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oxford Resource Partners, LP;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q based on such evaluation; and
 c.
    
    Disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the 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.
  By:
    /s/ CHARLES C. UNGUREANCharles C. UngureanPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Oxford
Resources GP, LLC (the general partner
of Oxford 
Resource Partners, LP)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6224

TIMOTHY WIMS, a/k/a Timothy Derrinado Davis, a/k/a John Darren Delgado , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, FCI Edgefield , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 0:16

- cv
- 02302

- RBH )

Submitted : August 29, 2017 Decided: September 15, 2017

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Timothy Wims, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Wims , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

rec ommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm. S ee Beckles v. United States , 137 S. Ct. 886, 894

- 95 (2017) ( United States Sentencing Guidelines not subject to void for vagueness challenge and therefore Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), did
not invalidate the residual clause of the definition of a crime of v iolence under the Guidelines). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Reverend Wesley CARROLL and Family, Appellant v. Robert V. BARTH, Jr., Clerk of Courts, Western District of Pennsylvania; The Office of the Clerk of Western District of Pennsylvania.

No. 10-1674.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 28, 2010.

Opinion filed: June 8, 2010.

Wesley Carroll, and Family Waymart, PA, pro se.

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Reverend Wesley Carroll, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. We will affirm.

Carroll is a frequent filer of pro se actions in District Court, and appeals in this Court. The present appeal concerns a mandamus petition filed in District Court against the District Court Clerk and Office of the Clerk. Carroll alleged that the Clerk’s Office is not filing and docketing his submissions.

A Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed because it was repetitious of an earlier mandamus petition that the District Court had transferred to this Court and we denied. *See In re Carroll,*272 Fed.Appx. 148 (3d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (unpublished decision). Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge stated that the current mandamus petition should be dismissed for the reasons stated in our decision. We explained that Carroll’s assertions were unsupported and noted that the court docket reflected a steady stream of submissions by Carroll. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the dismissal of the mandamus petition as to Carroll’s family, who were named as petitioners but had not signed the petition. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the mandamus petition and denied Carroll’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring that a petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief and that he show a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. *DeMasi v. Weiss,*669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir.1982). No such showing was made here.

As in his earlier mandamus action, Carroll’s claim that the District Court is not filing and docketing his submissions is unsupported. We also explained in that action that, to the extent Carroll is dissatisfied with how the District Court treats his submissions, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion and Carroll is free to challenge on appeal the effect of the District Court’s handling of a particular submission on a *107cause of action. *See In re Carroll,*272 Fed.Appx. at 149 (citing *In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation,*685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir.1982)). Thus, the District Court properly dismissed the mandamus petition and did not abuse its discretion in denying Carroll’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Lantis Laser Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stanley B. Baron, CEO and CFO ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Stanley B. Baron

Stanley B. BaronCEO and CFODated: August 11, 2009

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lantis Laser Inc. and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of Voxware, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Scott J. Yetter, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Voxware, Inc. and will be
retained by Voxware, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

|                                  | /s/ Scott J. Yetter           | 
|--------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|Dated:  
      September 29, 2008 | Scott J.
      Yetter        
|                                  | Chief Executive
      Officer

---
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 the Quarterly Report of Edgemont Mining Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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:  September
11, 2008








/s/
Dean Rogers


Dean
Rogers, President and C.E.O.


(Principal
Executive Officer)
#### Ramiro HERNANDEZ-BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74835.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

*698Ramiro Hernandez-Beltran, Pomona, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John E. Cunningham, II, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division/Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ramiro Hernandez-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying both his motion to terminate proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Hernandez-Beltran failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

Hernandez-Beltran contends the IJ erred in refusing to terminate proceedings where the government used confidential information from his application under the Special Agricultural Worker’s (“SAW”) program to initiate removal proceedings against him. This argument is unavailing, given that Hernandez-Beltran affirmatively applied for asylum after his SAW application was denied, the most recent Notice to Appear (“NTA”) relied on information he provided in his asylum application, he admitted to all the allegations in the NTA and he conceded the new charge of removability.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Clear-Lite Holdings, Inc., for the period ending January 31, 2010, I, David
Briones, Principal Financial Officer of Clear-Lite Holdings, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:
 
 1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2010,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended January 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of
 Clear-Lite
Holdings, Inc.
 
 
 Date:  
March 17, 2010
 
 /s/
David
Briones
 David
Briones
 Principal
Financial Officer
#### Dwayne N. BRANCH, a/k/a Rashid ElAbdullah, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7134.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 6, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.

*230Dwayne N. Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne N. Branch seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.* The 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Branch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal eontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2000), the parties consented to adjudication by the magistrate judge.
**Supplement to Fidelity's Targeted InternationalEquity Funds**®****
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14810]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


San Francisco National Historical Park Advisory Commission 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of Interior.

Agenda for the July 11, 2001 Public Meeting of the Advisory 
Commission for the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park; 
Building C Room 210, Lower Fort Mason Center, 10:00 AM-12:30 PM.

10:00 AM
    Welcome--Neil Chaitin, Chairman
    Opening Remarks--Neil Chaitin, Chairman
    Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting
10:15 AM
    William Thomas, Superintendent
10:30 AM
    C. A. Thayer, status
    Michael Bell, Project Officer
10:45 AM
    Haslett Visitor Center
    Marc Hayman, C, Interpretation & Resource Management
11:15 AM
    Sips Preservation Report
    Wayne Boykin, Ships Manager
11:30 AM
    Update on SFMNPA
    Kathy Lohan, Executive Officer
12:00 PM
    Public Comments and Questions
12:15 PM
    Agenda items/Date for next meeting

William G. Thomas,
Superintendent.
[FR Doc. 01-14810 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### Adan Reynoso CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-72196, 05-74830.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 5, 2008.

Francisco J. Barba, Esq., San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Don G. Scroggin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*551Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adan Reynoso Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and its order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen based on new evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo due process claims. *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the two motions because Reynoso Cisneros failed to establish prejudice. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (alien must demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s ineffective assistance to establish due process violation). The only additional evidence Reynoso Cisneros provided of his continuous physical presence from 1987 to 1992 is his brother’s declaration, yet the declaration is internally inconsistent regarding when his brother lived in Marysville. The new evidence is therefore insufficient to establish that counsel’s performance “may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” *Id.*at 899-900 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because Reynoso Cisneros did not establish prejudice regarding continuous physical presence, it was unnecessary for the BIA to address his new hardship evidence. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7055 LUCIA S. DEVILLENA, Claimant-Appellee,

v. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant. ON MOTION Before RADER, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R The Secretary of Veterans Affairs mo ves without opposition to stay proceedings in this appeal pending the court’s disposition of Vincent v. Nicholson , 2006-7166. The Secretary asserts that this case and Vincent involve the same issue, specifically, whether the Unit ed States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly concluded that applying a regulatory am endment made in 2000 to claims for dependency and indemnity compensation that were pending on the date of the amendment would be unlawfully retroactive. We note that the court hear d oral argument in Vincent on January 10, 2007. We agree with the Secretary that a stay of proceedings is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:(1) The motion to stay is granted. T he Secretary is directed to inform the court within 30 days of the disposition of Vincent how he believes this appeal should proceed. The appellee may also respond within that time. (2) A copy of this order shall be trans mitted to the merits panel that heard Vincent

.

February 15, 2007 /s/ Randall R. Rader Date Randall R. Rader Circuit Judge cc: Michael R. Viterna, Esq. Kyle E. Chadwick, Esq.
s17

2007-7055 2
#### MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; et al, Defendants, Daneshjou Company, Inc.; M.B. Daneshjou, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

No. 06-50552

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2006.

Joseph Jonathan Hlavinka, Engvall *&*Hlavinka, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee.

William Cyprian Dufour, Law Office of William C. Dufour, Trey L. Dolezal, Kasling, O’Toole, Hemphill & Dolezal, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daneshjou Company Inc. and M.B. Daneshjou (collectively “Daneshjou”) appeal the district court’s summary declaratory judgment that Mid-Continent Casualty Company owes Daneshjou no duty to defend or indemnify. We affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its very thorough discussion of the issue of manifestation and the evidence regarding the same.

AFFIRMED.

*

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.