alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WRITERS’
GROUP FILM CORP.


1752 East
Avenue J  #266


Lancaster,
CA  93535


213-694-1888





EXHIBIT
32





Section
1350 Certification





As
Adopted Pursuant To


Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002





Certification
of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





In
connection with the Form 10-Q of Writers’ Group Film Corp. (the “Company”)
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant
to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.





November
10, 2009








Tal L.
Kapelner, President


Principal
Executive Officer





/s/
Ariella Kapelner


Ariella
Kapelner, Treasurer


Principal
Financial Officer





This
certification accompanying the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.





www.writersgroupfilmcorp.com*info@writersgroupfilmcorp.com
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-12087, 333-68637, 333-94111, 333-42210, 333-56274, 333-90504
and 333-116740) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, the 1997
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, and
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-68117, 333-72225, 333-79925,
333-92355, 333-134507 and 333-144153) and in the related Prospectuses of Avigen,
Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2006, with respect to the 2005 financial
statements of Avigen, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2007.

|                            | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG
      LLP
|--------------------------- | ---------------------------
|Palo Alto,
      California |                            
|March 13,
      2008        |                            

82

---
1

Filed 2/9/16 P. v. Torres CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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

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

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JULIO SESAR TORRES,

Defendant and Appellant.

C078565

(Super. Ct. No. CM037433)

Appointed counsel for defendant Julio Sesar Torres asks this court to review the 

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment. 

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On September 12, 2012, deputies executed a search warrant at defendant’s 

property and discovered a marijuana growing operation with multiple marijuana gardens. 

On that same day, deputies also searched co-defendant Juan Valencia Torres’s property. 
2

There, they discovered a shed containing 89 growing marijuana plants. In the house, they

found paperwork belonging to defendant and a bankbook indicating co-defendant had 

recently deposited $47,000 into his bank account.

Defendant was charged with cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana 

for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11358, 11359.) On November 5, 2014, defendant 

pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana for sale. In exchange for his plea, the 

cultivation of marijuana charge and a separately filed case were dismissed with a Harvey

waiver.1 

On January 14, 2015, the trial court granted defendant probation with the 

condition he serve 90 days in county jail. It also imposed various fines and fees, and 

awarded defendant 16 days of custody credit. 

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 

§ 1237.5.) 

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case 

and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any 

arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by 

counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of 

the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication 

from defendant. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

 

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

 /s/

RAYE, P. J.

 /s/

RENNER, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GARCIA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50262.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Robert Charles Stacy, II, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Johns, Esquire, Johns *&*Al-lyn, APC A Professional Corporation, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*615Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Garcia-Lopez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER01-1129-000 and ER01-1129-001]


Duke Energy Power Marketing LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 6, 2001.
    Duke Energy Power Marketing, LLC (DEPM) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which DEPM will engage in wholesale electric power and 
energy transactions at market-based rates. DEPM also requested waiver 
of various Commission regulations. In particular, DEPM requested that 
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by DEPM.
    On May 14, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part, subject to the 
following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by DEPM should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.714).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, DEPM 
is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities 
as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any 
security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption 
is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the 
applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably 
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of DEPM's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 13, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14705 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1178 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to compile the cost 

estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office which are included in reports filed by committees of the House on approved legislation 

and post such estimates on the official public Internet site of the Office 

of the Clerk. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2010 

Mr. MURPHY of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to compile the cost estimates prepared by the Congressional 

Budget Office which are included in reports filed by 

committees of the House on approved legislation and 

post such estimates on the official public Internet site 

of the Office of the Clerk. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. COMPILATION AND INTERNET POSTING OF 

3 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ES4 TIMATES ON REPORTED LEGISLATION. 

5 (a) COMPILATION AND POSTING OF ESTIMATES.— 

6 The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall compile 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1178 IH 

1 the cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget 

2 Office which are included in the reports filed by commit3 tees of the House on measures approved by the commit4 tees (as required under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the 

5 Rules of the House of Representatives), and shall post 

6 such estimates on the official public Internet site of the 

7 Office of the Clerk. 

8 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Clerk shall carry out this 

9 resolution in accordance with regulations promulgated by 

10 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Steven GOINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-60984

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 8, 2008.

*308Calvin D. Buchanan, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven Goins, Federal Prison Camp At-water, Atwater, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Goins, federal prisoner number 06314-112, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2002). We review the district court’s denial for an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Boe,*117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.1997); *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007,1009 (5th Cir.1995).

Goins’s motion for a reduction of sentence based upon a retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines relies upon Amendment 506 to the Guidelines, which was effective November 1, 1994. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 506 (Nov. 1994) (amending USSG § 4B1.1, cmt., n. 2). Because Goins was sentenced on August 28, 1996, Amendment 506 would not apply retroactively to him, as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and USSG § 1B1.10. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goins’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.1

To the extent that Goins raises arguments based on *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), such arguments are foreclosed. The application of *Booker*is limited to cases pending on direct review or not yet final as of January 12, 2005. *Booker,*543 U.S. at 268, 125 S.Ct. 738; *United States v. Gentry,*432 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir.2005). Because Goins’s judgment was entered on September 4, 1998, *Booker*does not apply.

Goins’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Goins has *309previously received warning from this court that the filing of future frivolous appeals may result in sanctions. *See United States v. Goins,*95 Fed.Appx. 561 (5th Cir.2004). We again caution Goins that further frivolous filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary penalties, and restrictions on his ability to file appeals in this court and actions in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.

1

. We also note the district court’s accurate observation that application of Amendment 506 and the Supreme Court's decision in *United States v. LaBonte,*520 U.S. 751, 117 S.Ct. 1673, 137 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1997) would be precluded, because Goins was not sentenced as a Career Offender under USSG § 4B1.1.
H. Res. 1178 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 9, 2010. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. INTERNET POSTING OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

OFFICE COST ESTIMATES. 

(a) INTERNET POSTING.—The Clerk of the House of 

Representatives shall ensure that cost estimates prepared by 

the Congressional Budget Office are available to the public by 

including a link to the official web site of the Congressional 

Budget Office on the official public Internet site of the Office 

of the Clerk. 

(b) REGULATIONS.—The Clerk shall carry out this resolution in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

Committee on House Administration. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 289.

#### Skipper *v.*Schumacher, Sheriff.

Jurisdictional statement distributed September 10, 1936.

Decided October 12, 1936.

*Mr. W. D. Bell*for appellant.

*Mr. Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General of Florida, for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion for leave to file amended statement as to jurisdiction is granted. The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Seattle, R. & S. Ry.*v. *Linhoff,*231 U. S. 568, 570; *Enterprise Irrigation District*v. *Canal Co.,*243 U. S. 157, 165, 166; *Hebert*v. *Louisiana,*272 U. S 312, 316, 317; *American Railway Express Co.*v. *Kentucky,*273 U. S. 269, 272, 273; *Secor*v. *Fulton,*293 U. S. 517. Insofar as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek review of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Florida upon questions of the asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution not involving the validity of any statute of the State, such papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari (§ 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 938), and certiorari is denied.
#### Andreas BUNTARAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74659.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, Oil, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*658Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Andreas Buntaran, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances excused the untimely filing of Buntaran’s asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Therefore, we deny the petition as to Buntaran’s asylum claim.

Although substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding that Buntaran’s encounter with the navy official was not on account of his Chinese ethnicity, *see Mihalev v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 722, 727-28 (9th Cir.2004), substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Buntaran failed to establish he suffered any harm that, even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution, *see Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009); *see also Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

The BIA did not address Buntaran’s contention that he has a clear probability of persecution as a member of a disfavored group. In light of our decision in *Wakka-ry,*we grant and remand for the BIA to assess Buntaran’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Lastly, Buntaran does not challenge the denial of CAT relief in his opening brief. *See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,*409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (issues not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief are waived).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*659ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Kim Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, 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.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.
 
 
 Date: November 17, 2010
 
 /s/ Kim ThompsonKim Thompson

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.     
333-15767), on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-14013), on Form
S-3 of Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc. of our report dated January 6,
1997, relating to the balance sheets of Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc.
as of October 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the October 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Interactive
Flight Technologies, Inc.

                            /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP





Las Vegas, Nevada
January 22, 1997
(March 19, 2009)

#### In the Matter of Lana Callen et al., Appellants, v Vicki Morgan et al., Respondents.

[874 NYS2d 377]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 9, 2008, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lehner, J., without costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order filed. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: August 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 44260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20au97-40]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, September 22, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-22155 Filed 8-18-97; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----