alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 18, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10459

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 98-08148-CR-KLR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

TERRANCE WELLONS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 18, 2008)

Before DUBINA, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Terrance Wellons appeals pro se the district court’s order denying Wellons’s

motion to dismiss his indictment. Wellons argues that the court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence him because there was a “defect” in

his indictment. For the reasons set forth more fully below, we affirm. 

I.

Generally, we review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an

indictment for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176,

1178 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 193 (2007). However, a district court’s

subject matter jurisdiction “is a question of law and, therefore, subject to de novo

review.” United States v. Perez, 956 F.2d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1992).

A motion alleging a defect in an indictment must normally be filed pre-trial,

“but at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the

indictment . . . fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state an offense.” 

Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(B) (emphasis added). In Wellons’s case, he filed his

motion to dismiss his indictment seven years after we affirmed his convictions and

five years after we affirmed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See Wellons v. United States,

48 Fed.Appx. 328 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, Wellons’s case was not “pending”

within the meaning of Rule 12(b)(3)(B), and, therefore, the district court properly
3

denied the motion. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.

2002) (holding that district court correctly denied a post-conviction motion to

dismiss an indictment where the defendant’s case that led to his conviction and

sentence was no longer pending).

Moreover, as mentioned above, Wellons had already filed one § 2255

motion that was denied by the district court and affirmed by us. See Wellons v.

United States, 48 Fed.Appx. 328 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, to the extent that

Wellons’s motion could be construed as a § 2255 motion, his motion was

nonetheless properly denied because Wellons improperly has attempted to

circumvent federal habeas requirements. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h),

cross-referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (requiring that, before an applicant may file a

second or successive § 2255 motion in the district court, the applicant must move

the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider such a

motion).

In light of the foregoing, the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Borland Software Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth R. Hahn, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ KENNETH R. HAHN    
|Kenneth R. Hahn        
|Chief Financial Officer



May 2, 2006



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company 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 Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 Avatech Solutions, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify,
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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 16, 2009 |  | /s/ George M. Davis                  
|                        |  | George M. Davis                      
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                        | 
|                        |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                 
|                        |  | Lawrence Rychlak                     
|                        |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
Release:#3974-96 (CFTC Docket SD 97-1)

For Release:December 2, 1996

CFTC FILES STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION ACTION AGAINST

JOHN P. LAROCQUE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCEPTS HIS SETTLEMENT OFFER,
    WHICH INCLUDES A TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF CONDITIONED REGISTRATION

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that it has filed a Notice of Intent to Deny or Condition
    Registration against John P. LaRocque of Hinsdale, Illinois, for
    registration as a floor trader. At the same time the Notice was filed, the
    CFTC accepted LaRocque's offer of settlement, which grants LaRocque floor
    trader registration, subject to conditions, for a two-year period.

Under the terms of the settlement, during the two-year period of
    conditioned registration, LaRocque must be supervised by a sponsor who will
    provide close supervision of his trading. LaRocque may not serve on certain
    self-regulatory committees, including disciplinary committees, arbitration
    panels, and governing boards.

The CFTC's Notice alleged that LaRocque was the subject of six Chicago
    Board Options Exchange (CBOE) disciplinary proceedings, which LaRocque
    settled without admitting or denying the allegations and consenting to
    findings made against him.

On March 30, 1990, the CBOE found that LaRocque, on five separate
    occasions in December 1988 and February 1989, exceeded position limits on
    RJR Nabisco Inc. class of options contracts. On March 1, 1989, the CBOE
    found that LaRocque on October 20, 1987 traded outside of the trading
    rotation sequence; and that on October 20, 1987, he failed to report at
    least three Standard and Poor's 100 Stock Index (OEX) transactions and
    failed to record an execution time for two OEX transactions.

Furthermore, on March 6, 1987, the CBOE found that on September 15,
    1986, and January 16, 1987, LaRocque exceeded position limits on OEX option
    contracts. On July 11, 1986, the CBOE found that LaRocque on December 20,
    1985, exceeded position limits on OEX option contracts. On February 14,
    1986, the CBOE found that LaRocque on April 18, 1985, failed to give
    sufficient notice that he intended to exercise 20 OEX April 170 call option
    contracts options. On December 16, 1984, the CBOE found that LaRocque on
    July 5, 1984 failed to exercise thirty OEX July 160 put option contracts
    after submitting a CBOE Exercise Advice Form to the CBOE.

---
Jimie L. STARKS, petitioner, v. PARBALL CORPORATION, dba Bally's Las Vegas.

No. 17-8534.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Robert E. FOX, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1338.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                    PAMRAPO BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                -----------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                                          September 30, 2001            September 30, 2001
                                                                         ---------------------         --------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>                           <C>
Net income                                                                   $   1,271,366                  $   3,338,227
                                                                             =============                  =============

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic and diluted                          2,577,737                      2,581,070
                                                                             =============                  =============

Basic and diluted earnings per share                                         $        0.49                  $        1.29
                                                                             =============                  =============
</TABLE>

                                      -17-
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00023-CV

ASTIN REDEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,

Appellant

v.

CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4975-B

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on July 31, 2014. The parties jointly 

objected to the referral Order. The objection is sustained and the suspension of the 

appeal is lifted. Any deadline that began to run and had not expired by the date of this 

Order sustaining the objection to mediation will begin anew as of the date of this Order. 

Any document filed by a party after the date of the mediation referral Order and prior 

to the date of this Order will be deemed filed on the same day, but after, the date of this 

Order.
Astin Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. Page 2

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Objection sustained, suspension of appeal lifted

Order issued and filed September 4, 2014
---

Exhibit 32.1



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

In connection with the Annual Report of Sense Technologies Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: July 13, 2006 | /s/ Bruce E. Schreiner                    
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                     | Bruce E. Schreiner                        
|                     | President and Principal Accounting Officer

---
<PAGE>

July 20, 1999

William Kraemer, Vice President
MCNIC Pipeline & Processing Company
150 West Jefferson Avenue Suite 1700
Detroit MI 48226

         Re:      Crown Asphalt Distribution, L.L.C.

Dear Bill:

         As you know, pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Operating Agreement of
Crown Asphalt Distribution, L.L.C. ("CAD"), MCNIC Pipeline & Processing Company
("MCNIC") has chosen to participate in the formation of Crown Asphalt
Distribution Two, L.L.C. ("CAD TWO") such that CAD Two will pursue the
Additional Opportunity of acquiring certain assets from Asphalt Supply &
Service, Inc., Interstate Asphalt Company, Inc., Inoco, Inc. and S&L Industrial.
In particular, the agreements between MCNIC and Crown Asphalt Products Company
with respect to CAD Two are set forth in a separate letter agreement, also dated
as of today.

         We ask that this supplemental letter agreement be executed and
delivered by MCNIC in order to confirm the agreement described below.

         We have agreed that the Working Capital Loan referred to in Section 7.1
of the CAD Operating Agreement and the promissory note evidencing CAD's
repayment obligation under such Working Capital Loan will be rolled into and
replaced by the Loan from MCNIC for working capital, inventory and receivables
described in Section 7.2 of the CAD Operating Agreement. The Loan currently has
a balance and continues to be drawn against pursuant to the terms of Section
7.2, but as of this date has not been documented. As soon as reasonably
practicable following the Closing, MCNIC and CAD will execute the loan
documentation evidencing such Loan as described in Section 7.2 and any
documentation needed to evidence the corresponding satisfaction and discharge of
the preexisting promissory note.

         In order to indicate MCNIC's acceptance of this letter agreement (which
acceptance will be a condition precedent to Capco's execution or delivery of the
Contribution Agreement and related CAD Two financing documents), please sign and
return a duplicate copy of this letter where indicated below.

                                           CROWN ASPHALT PRODUCTS COMPANY

                                           Jay Mealey, President

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
-----------------------

MCNIC PIPELINE & PROCESSING COMPANY

By:
   ---------------------------------
William Kraemer, Vice President
Release: #3902-96

For Release:April 11, 1996

CFTC FILES CIVIL ANTI-FRAUD ACTION AGAINST A

WASHINGTON STATE COMMODITY POOL OPERATOR, KEN WILLEY

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Willey, Freezing His
    Assets

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that on April 9, 1996, it filed a three- count civil injunctive
    complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
    against Ken Willey of Twisp, Washington, charging him with violating
    the anti-fraud provisions of Federal commodity law and acting as an
    unregistered commodity pool operator.

The CFTC complaint alleges that Willey is holding $17.5 million received
    from at least 274 customers for the purpose of trading commodity futures
    contracts, and that Willey refuses to account for approximately $12 million
    of funds collected on behalf of pool customers. The CFTC has frozen over $5
    million of customer funds.

The complaint further alleges that the defendant received investor funds
    in a name other than that of the pool's and commingled pool property with
    assets of other persons. Furthermore, Willey allegedly engaged in a scheme
    to defraud pool participants by distributing account statements which
    misrepresented the changes in net asset value and income and loss realized
    by individual participants.

On the same day the complaint was filed, U.S. District Court Judge
    William F. Nielson entered a consent order of preliminary injunction
    against Willey, which freezes Willey's assets, and prohibits him from
    destroying his books and records and from denying CFTC representatives
    access to such records for the Commission's ongoing investigation. The
    order also enjoins Willey from further violating the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations charged.

The CFTC is seeking a permanent injunction that would, among other
    things, require an accounting, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
    restitution to customers, and the payment of a civil monetary penalty of
    $100,000, or triple the monetary gains to the defendant, whichever is
    greater, for each violation.

# # #

---
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I,Benjamin C. Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of John W. Henry &Co./Millburn L.P., certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |
|--------------------|--------|

 
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN C.  WESTON |   |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Benjamin C.  Weston                    |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
EXHIBIT 13.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection  with the annual report of Wealth Minerals Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form  20-F for the  fiscal  year  ending  November  30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gary
Freeman, 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 the best of 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.


May 30, 2005                            By: /s/ Gary Freeman
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name:   Gary Freeman
                                        Title:  Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 has been provided to
the  Registrant  and will be retained by the  Registrant  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification  accompanies the Form 20-F 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
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 20-F),  irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
Atif RAFAY, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 17-8589.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
Charles Chukwumeze ELERI, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17M29.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time denied.