alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Achilles CORELLEONE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-57036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Achilles Corelleone, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Achilles Corelleone, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his arrest and the seizure of his vehicle and cell phone. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,*821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that Corelleone’s allegations imply the invalidity of his conviction, and he has not shown that his conviction was overturned or otherwise invalidated. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (an action for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); *see also Tripati,*821 F.2d at 1370 (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

Corelleone’s contention that he is seeking the return of his property rather than challenging his conviction, made for the first time on appeal, is unavailing. *See Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir.1994) (noting the availability of adequate post-deprivation state law remedies for the deprivation of property); *Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

Issues that are not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003).

Corelleone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Intervenor, v. AMERICAN DIRECTIONAL BORING, INC., Respondent.

No. 09-1194.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.

Filed: June 24, 2010.

Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Kellie Isbell, Meredith Jason, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Ralph P. Tremain, National Labor Relations Board, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner.

Christopher Grant, Schuchat & Cook, St. Louis, MO, for Intervenor.

Bryan M. Kaemmerer, Michael E. Ka-emmerer, McCarthy & Leonard, Chesterfield, MO, for Respondent.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge,* BENTON, Circuit Judge, and VIKEN,** District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James B. Loken stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on March 31, 2010. He has been succeeded by the Honorable William Jay Riley.

**

**The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has applied for enforcement of its Supplemental Decision and Order directing American Directional Boring, Inc. (ADB), to bargain with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 2, and granting other relief to remedy numerous unfair labor practices the Board found were committed by ADB in response to a union organizing effort. *See*29 U.S.C. § 160(e). The Order was entered by two members of a three-member group to which the Board delegated all its powers in December 2007 pursuant to § 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 153(b). When the Order was entered on September 30, 2008, the five-member Board had only two members.

In *New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB,*560 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2635, 2644-45, *595- L.Ed.2d- (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court held that a two-member group may not exercise delegated authority when the total Board membership falls below three because “the delegation clause [in § 3(b) ] requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.” Accordingly, we deny the application for enforcement.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1660. JOSEPH KARANJA v. DORENE KARANJA.

After the trial court granted Dorene Karanja’s petition for a 12-month

protective order under the Family Violence Act, OCGA§ 19-13-1 et seq., respondent

Joseph Karanja filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals of orders in domestic relations cases — including actions arising under

the Family Violence Act — must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 461-462 (1)

(510 SE2d 810) (1999), disapproved in part on other grounds by Gilliam v. State, 312

Ga. 60, 64 (860 SE2d 543) (2021). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257,

257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996).Joseph’s failure to followthe required appellate procedure

deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 24, 2024

06/24/2024
Exhibit 32   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 Digitiliti, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Daniel J. Herbeck, President, and William McDonald, CFO/Treasurer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:November 19, 2008By:/s/ Daniel J. HerbeckDaniel J. Herbeck, President, CEO and Director  Date:November 19, 2008By:/s/William McDonaldWilliam McDonald, CFO/ Treasurer
CERTIFICATION

I, Stanley B. Baron, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report of Lantis Laser Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2009

/s/ Stanley B. BaronCEO and CFO
Exhibit 4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated November 28, 2014 on the consolidated financial statements of Shaw
Communications Inc. as at August 31, 2014 and 2013 and for the two years ended August 31, 2014, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of August 31, 2014 of Shaw Communications Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                  |  |  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|Calgary, Canada November 28,
2014 |  |  |  | LOGO Chartered Accountants
|                                  |
#### Mario DJAJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72150.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 5, 2008.

Kathleen S. Koh, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Justin Constantine, Luis E. Perez, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: 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 **

Mario Djaja, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applica*550tion for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, it is unclear whether the BIA conducted a *de novo*review, the court will “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.” *See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS,*218 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, reversing only if the evidence compels the result, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Djaja has shown extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); *see also Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Djaja’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Djaja failed to establish he had experienced past persecution. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). In addition, even assuming the disfavored group analysis set forth in *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004) applies to withholding of removal claims, the record does not compel the conclusion that Djaja will more likely than not be persecuted upon return to Indonesia. *See Hox-ha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003). Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Djaja failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. *See Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1178-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

In his opening brief, Djaja fails to address, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is ineligible for CAT relief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
| **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 05--002 | **17 CFR Part 1     Investment of Customer Funds and Record of Investments** |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| FR CITE: | 70 FR 5577 (February 3,     2005) |
|----------|------------------------------------|

| CLOSES: | 03/07/2005 |
|---------|------------|

| EXTENDED: | LINK TO FILE: | http://ww |
|-----------|---------------|-----------|

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

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

| 05--001 | **Proposed Withdrawal of     Interpretation No. 10** |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| FR CITE: | 70 FR 5417 (February 2,     2005) |
|----------|------------------------------------|

| CLOSES: | 04/04/2005 |
|---------|------------|

| EXTENDED: | LINK TO FILE: | http://ww |
|-----------|---------------|-----------|

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

FirstPreviousNextLast
<R></R>

Like securities of all mutual funds, these securities have not been approved or disapproved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has not determined if this prospectus is accurate or complete. Any representationto the contrary is a criminal offense.

**Fidelity**®**Series**
EXHIBIT
31.2





SILVER
STAR CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.





CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jack
E. Owens, solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that the report of Silver Star Capital Holdings, Inc. on Form
10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-SB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of Silver Star Capital Holdings, Inc.





Date:
December 10, 2008








/s/ Jack E.
Owens


Jack E.
Owens


Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit (d)(137)

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY RESEARCH & ANALYSIS COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF**
ADDISON-DAVIS DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS
                       OF ADDISON-DAVIS DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
                          PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS. 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTOIN 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Addison-Davis Diagnostics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Edward W. Withrow III,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(a) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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



                                     Dated: September 30, 2005


                                     /s/ Edward W. Withrow III
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     Edward W. Withrow III
                                     Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40430 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GERARDO TORRES

- BECCARA, also known as Jesus Torres, also known as Gerardo Beccara

- Torres , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 171

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Torres

Beccara has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a b rief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres

- Beccara h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40430 Document: 00513217076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2015No. 14

- 40430

2 th erein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DIS MISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-40430 Document: 00513217076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2015
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Presidential Documents 30633

Presidential Determination No. 2001–17 of June 1, 2001

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act

of 1974, as Amended—Continuation of Waiver Authority for

Vietnam

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’), I determine, pursuant to section 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that

the further extension of the waiver authority granted by section 402 of

the Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the

Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to Vietnam

will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act.

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 01–14520

Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 1, 2001.

W

Billing code 4710–10–M
Exhibit 23.1








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board of Directors Rent-A-Center, Inc.:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-32296, 333-40958, 333-62582, 333-136615, 333-139792, 333-145121, 333-171926, and 333-211859) on Form S-8 of Rent-A-Center, Inc. of our reports dated March 1 , 2019, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Rent-A-Center, Inc. as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 , the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31 , 2018, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements), and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, which reports appears in the December 31, 2018 annual report on Form 10-K of Rent-A-Center, Inc.





/s/ KPMG LLP





Dallas, Texas


March 1, 2019
EXHIBIT
32.2





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DOT VN, INC.





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dot VN, Inc.
for the quarter ended January 31, 2008, the undersigned, Dr. Lee Johnson,
President of Dot VN, Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) the
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended January 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Dot VN, Inc.





Date:
      March 17, 2009
              /s/ Dr. Lee JohnsonDr.
      Lee JohnsonPresident
      and Chief Financial
Officer