alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6745** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TYMON JAMES WELLS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 0:10

- cr - 00869

- CMC

- 1; 0:13

- cv - 02683

- CMC )

Submitted : October 22, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS , Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tymon James Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tymon James Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B ) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by dem onstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Wells 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 legal3 contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# FCM Data September 2010

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF &K01+000SEPTEMBER 30, 2010FROM REPORTS FILED BY OCTOBER 31, 20&K00000010	&P of &N
#### Lorenzo Dominic RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1744.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

*243Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Richardson v. North Carolina,*No. 5:11-cv-00081-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2011). We deny Richardson’s motion for relief, and 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.2





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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Markus R. Ernst, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 , that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 3) of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2011 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 Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 3) fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date July 15, 2013 | /s/Markus R. Ernst                          
|------------------ | --------------------------------------------
|                   | Markus R. Ernst                             
|                   | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 101.

#### President and Directors of the Manhattan Company et al. *v.*Prudence-Bonds Corp. et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. J. M. Richardson Lyeth, John Ross Delafield, Jackson A. Dykman, Thurlow M. Gordon, Timothy N. Pfeiffer, John W. Davis,*and *Emery H. Sykes*for petitioners.

*Messrs. Archibald Palmer*and *Wm. P. Maloney*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register: August 9, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 152)]
[Corrections]
[Page 43254]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09au99-125]



[[Page 43254]]



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 9


Alternative Methods of Compliance With Requirements for
Disclosure of Exchange Disciplinary Information and Access Denial
Actions

Correction

    In rule document 99-18804 beginning on page 39915, in the issue of
Friday, July 23, 1999, make the following correction(s):
    1. On page 39916, in the first column, under the heading I.
Introduction, in the first paragraph, in the last line, ``Regulation
9.112(a)'' should read ``Regulation 9.11(a)''.
    2. On the same page, in the third column, under the heading III.
Alternative Methods of Compliance, in the first paragraph, in line 18,
``exchange'' should read ``exchanges''.
    3. On the same page, in the same column, under the same heading, in
the second paragraph, in the first line, ``is'' should read ``in''; and
in the eighth line, ``notice'' should read ``notices''.
    4. On page 39917, in the first column, in footnote 11, in line 14,
``regulation'' should read ``Regulation''.
    5. On the same page, in the second column, in footnote 13, in the
second line, ``disciplinary'' should read ``Disciplinary''; and on the
eighth line, ``sugar'' should read ``Sugar''.
    6. On the same page, in the third column, under the heading B.
Verification and Timeliness of Electronic Notice, in the first
paragraph, in the sixth line, ``exchange'' should read ``exchanges''.
[FR Doc. C9-18804 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```

----

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

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JESSE J. FLOYD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-98-1015, CA-01-3572-19-3)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse J. Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse J. Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Floyd, Nos. CR-98-1015; CA-01-

3572-19-3 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2001). 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
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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry Kristof, 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:




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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  January 14, 2010




By:      /s/ Larry Kristof
Larry Kristof
President, Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**Written Certification of Chief Financial OfficerI, Joe Ragan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GTSI Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal 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 registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: May 7, 2008   /s/ JOE RAGAN Joe Ragan  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Agustin MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James DZURENDA, Warden, I/O, and Pinto, CO, I/O, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-4200-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 30, 2010.

Agustín Morales, pro se, Newtown, CT.

Ann E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Agustín Morales (“plaintiff’ or “Morales”), *pro se,*appeals from a summary judgment of the District Court entered in favor of defendants-ap-pellees. The District Court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo,*construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). We also review *de novo*a district court’s determination that a plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). *See Johnson v. Rowley,*569 F.3d 40, 44 (2d Cir.2009).

The PLRA requires that prison inmates exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeldng relief in federal court. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Act requires “ ‘proper exhaustion,’ which ‘means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so *properly*(so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).’ ” *Hernandez v. Coffey,*582 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 *29U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006)). We have explained that failure to exhaust may be excused only where: (1) administrative remedies were not in fact available; (2) prison officials have forfeited, or are estopped from raising, the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion; or (3) “special circumstances ... justify the prisoner’s failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements.” *Hemphill v. New York,*380 F.3d 680, 686 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon *de novo*review, we agree with the District Court that plaintiff failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies, and did not demonstrate special circumstances sufficient to excuse his failure to exhaust. *See id.*Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. *See*App. 10-22 *(Morales v. Dzurenda,*No. 3:07-cv-1220, Docket Entry No. 37 (D.Conn. Sept. 8, 2009)).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jainigal MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jainigal Moore, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Peter M. Ferguson, Ventura, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, United States Circuit Judge.

ORDER:

Jainigal Moore pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. Moore’s plea agreement contained a waiver-of-appeal provision. Appointed counsel for Moore has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). If, on appeal, the Government does not seek to enforce an appeal waiver, the waiver is not binding. *United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006). However, in this case the Government has not had an opportunity to address Moore’s appellate waiver.

“[I]t is defense counsel’s obligation to ascertain and certify that the Government would rely on the defendant’s appellate waiver before moving to withdraw.” *United States v. Acquaye,*452 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal. Moore’s counsel is directed to file a new *Anders*brief stating the Government’s position with respect to the waiver or a brief on the merits of this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. *See id.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00484

- CR

David Asa VILLARREAL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0549

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 27, 2019.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-3  (No.  333-114529)  and the  Registration  Statements  on Form S-8 (No.
333-112934 and No. 333-30829) of Global Payment Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated  January 11, 2007,  with  respect to the  financial  statements  of Global
Payment Technologies Pty Ltd included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended September 30, 2006.


/s/ Pitcher Partners


Sydney, Australia
January 11, 2007



                                      120
<PAGE>

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-3  (No.  333-114529)  and the  Registration  Statements  on Form S-8 (No.
333-112934 and No. 333-30829) of Global Payment Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated January 11, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
eCash  Holdings Pty Limited and  subsidiaries  included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006.


/s/ Pitcher Partners


Sydney, Australia
January 11, 2007



                                      121
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Monday, June 18, 2001.

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Dated: June 8, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-14925  Filed 6-8-01; 3:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3693]

# AGENCY:

United States Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations:

                        Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “The Art of Chola Bronzes,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington, DC from on or about November 10, 2002 to on or about March 9, 2003 and the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX from on or about April                               ( print page 31268)                            4, 2003 to on or about June 15, 2003, and the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH from on or about July 4, 2003 to on or about September 14, 2003 is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser,Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6981).The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700,Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01-14629 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U