alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES PRESTON FRYE, a/k/a Jamie Frye, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-01-167; CA-03-302-3) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Preston Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Preston Frye, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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 his constitutional claims are 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 (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 Frye 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16997.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

*287Abe Williams, Jr., lone, CA, pro se.

Anthony P. O’Brien, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies Williams' request. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Abe Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to compel discovery, *Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams’ allegations that Defendants misapply various provisions of the California Penal Code rest on erroneous interpretations of state law such that Williams has not suffered any constitutional injury. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1983; *In re Dannenberg,*34 Cal.4th 1061, 1079-80, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (2005); *In re Dayan,*231 Cal.App.3d 184, 186-89, 282 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1991).

Moreover, to the extent Williams’ § 1983 action challenges prior parole suitability decisions or would otherwise necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration of his confinement, it is barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). *See Wilkinson v. Dotson,*544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’ motion to compel discovery. *See Hallett,*296 F.3d at 751 (trial court’s broad discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that [the] denial of discovery resulted] in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Williams’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Williams’ motion for removal of the stay of proceedings as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0703

_____________________________

JOHN M. MURRAY,

Appellant,

v.

FL COMMISSION ON OFFENDER 

REVIEW,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Ronald W. Flury, Judge.

June 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Banks v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2005). 

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

John M. Murray, pro se, Appellant.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender 

Review, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 23




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To the Board of Directors
QT 5, Inc.


We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  previously  filed
Registration  Statements  of QT 5,  Inc.  on  Form  S-8  (File  Nos.  333-92236,
333-103208,  333-104740) of our report,  dated August 19, 2003,  except for Note
11, as to which the date is September 5, 2003,  appearing in this Annual  Report
on Form 10-KSB of QT 5, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2003.




                                                          CORBIN & COMPANY, LLP

Irvine, California
September 18, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29


August 14, 1996

Thomas J.  Paulson
76 Middlebeach Road West
Madison, CT 06443

Dear Tom:

Let me express how enthusiastic we are about the possibility of you joining the
Avigen team as Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, beginning
on August 16, 1996.  This letter confirms the terms of our offer.

1.   Your annual salary will be $160,000, payable twice monthly.

2.   You will be enrolled in the Company's prepaid group health, dental and
     disability plans.

3.   You will have the option of enrolling in the Company's 401(k) program.

4.   You will have three weeks of paid vacation per year.

5.   Pending approval of Avigen's Board of Directors, we plan to offer you
     options on 100,000 shares of common stock of Avigen at the price applicable
     at the time of the option grant, as determined by the Board.

6.   Avigen will pay your relocation expenses in moving from Connecticut to the
     Bay Area.

7.   You will sign Avigen's Proprietary Information and Invention Agreement for
     Employees.

8.   You will agree to follow Avigen's company policy that employees must not
     disclose any information regarding salary, bonuses, or stock allocation to
     other employees, either directly or indirectly.

Regarding item 6 above, please give me an estimate of your anticipated
relocation expenses.

There are two copies of this letter enclosed.  If all of the foregoing is
satisfactory, please sign and date each copy, and return one copy to me in the
envelope marked Confidential, saving the other copy for yourself.

We look forward to the prospect of working with you in our exciting company.

Sincerely,





                                       55
<PAGE>   2


/s/ John Monahan
John Monahan, Ph.D.
President and CEO

Enclosure

cc:  Glenn Bauer

I have read, understand and hereby accept the foregoing terms and conditions of
employment.

NAME: /s/ Thomas J. Paulson              DATE:  8/14/96   
     ---------------------------                ---------------------------





                                       56
#### Andrea REYNOSO DE VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75659.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 *.

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Shawn Sedaghat, Law Offices of Shawn Sedaghat, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smile, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Andrea Reynoso de Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Reynoso de Velasco’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that she failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, Reynoso de Velasco has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 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.
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
                             8515 East Orchard Road
                        Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111



April 11, 2006


VIA EDGAR AND HAND DELIVERY

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington D.C.  20549-0506

 Re:       Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
           Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registration Statement on Form S-3
           File No. 333-95839

Commissioners:

         Registrant and principal underwriter hereby requests, pursuant to Rule
461 under the Securities Act of 1933, that the Commission declare the enclosed
Registration Statement effective on May 1, 2006, or as soon thereafter as
practicable.

         Registrant and principal underwriter represents that this request is
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company


                                    By:  /s/ Chris Bergeon

                                    Name:  Chris Bergeon

                                    Title: Vice President, Financial
                                           Institutions Markets
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima |                         |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|              |                                                      |                         |   |
| October 30, 2013. | By:                                                       | /s/ Eduardo S. Elsztain |   |
|              |                                                      | Eduardo S. Elsztain          |   |
|              |                                                      | Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|              |                                                      |                         |   |
##### 



U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 40-F
 Check One
 o
    
    Registration Statement Pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 þ
    
    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2007
 Commission File Number: 001-14684
 Shaw Communications Inc.
 
  N/A
 
  Alberta, Canada
 
  4841
 
  N/A
 
  Suite 900, 630  3rd  Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4L4
(403) 750-4500
 
  CT Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10011 (212) 894-8940
 
    Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredClass B Non-VotingParticipating Shares
    
    New York Stock Exchange
 
  None
 
   8.54% Series B Capital Securities
8.25% Senior Notes due 2010
7.25% Senior Notes due 2011
7.20% Senior Notes due 2011
6.10% Senior Notes due 2012
7.5% Senior Notes due 2013
6.15% Senior Notes due 2016
5.70% Senior Notes due 2017
 
   þ þ
  Class A Participating Shares -
    
    
    22,563,064
    
    
    issued and outstandingClass B Non-Voting Participating Shares -
    
    
    408,770,759
    
    
    issued and outstanding
 Exchange Act).
 o þ
  þ o




---



##### 



DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
  MANAGEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
  AUDITOR ATTESTATION




---



##### 



CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
  IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
  AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
  PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act
 Type of Service
    
    Fiscal 2007
    
    
    Fiscal 2006Audit Fees
    
    $
    2,113,235
    
    
    $
    2,213,961Audit-related Fees
    
    
    312,075
    
    
    
    195,457Tax Fees
    
    
    66,017
    
    
    
    436,736All Other Fees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    $
    2,491,327
    
    
    $
    2,846,154




---



##### 



de minimus
 CODE OF ETHICS
 www.shaw.ca
 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
  TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
  UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:
    /s/ Steve WilsonSteve Wilson,Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBITS
  Exhibit Number
    
    Document1.
    
    Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2007.2.
    
    Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2007.3.
    
    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP.4.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 29, 2007.5.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 29, 2007.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          21,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,071
<INVENTORY>                                    208,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               337,090
<PP&E>                                          94,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 767,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          277,338
<BONDS>                                        342,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   767,486
<SALES>                                        365,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               365,454
<CGS>                                          185,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  185,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,743
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,848
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
        

</TABLE>
No. 353.

#### Torinus *v.*Johnson et al.

Jurisdictional state*509ment distributed September 10, 1936.

Decided October 12, 1936.

*Mr. Carl W. Cummins*for appellant.

*Messrs. Harry H. Peterson*and *William S. Ervin*for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Tappan*v. *Merchants’ National Bank,*19 Wall. 490, 505; *Florida Central R. Co.*v. *Reynolds,*183 U. S. 471, 480-481; *White River Co.*v. *Arkansas,*279 U. S. 692, 696-699.
Exhibit 32.1



SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Ulm Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bill Otis, President and Chief Executive 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, to my 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: August 8, 2008
        
        By
        /s/
        Bill OtisBill OtisPresident and Chief Executive Officer






---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Voxware, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Bathsheba J. Malsheen, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Nicholas Narlis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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/ Nicholas Narlis
                                                    ----------------------------
Dated:  October 14, 2003                            Nicholas Narlis
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1225 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1225

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 25, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
2010 (S. Con. Res. 13), with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in 
the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Education and Labor or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. 
The motion shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0168-08

GARY LLOYD MILLER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

FORT BEND COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at

confinement for forty years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on March 29,

2007. Miller v. State, No. 14-06-00224-CR (Houston [14th], delivered March 29, 2007). On

May 29, 2007, Appellant timely filed his petition for discretionary review in the Court of

Appeals. See Tex.R.App.P. 68.2. On June 14, 2007, the Court of Appeals withdrew its
GARY LLOYD MILLER -2

opinion, but failed to issue another opinion in its place. On December 13, 2007, the Court

of Appealsissued another opinion, again affirming the conviction. Miller v. State, No. 14-06-

00224-CR (Houston [14th], delivered December 13, 2007). 

The Court of Appeals’ opinion issued on December 13, 2007, was untimely under rule

50 because it wasissued more than 30 days after Appellant’s petition for discretionary review

had been filed. See Parsons v. State, 187 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Ex parte

Brashear, 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192

(Tex.Cr.App. 1995). Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction to issue that opinion.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ opinion issued on December 13, 2007, is ordered

withdrawn, and the original judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals that issued on

March 29, 2007, are reinstated. With this understanding, Appellant's original petition for

discretionary review is refused.

Delivered: April 2, 2008 

Publish