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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KELVIN BROWN, a/k/a Doom,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00110-RGD-TEM-4; 

4:17-cv-00072-RGD)

Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Brown 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Brown’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/23/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      421,228
COMMITMENTS
  49,632   21,205   83,832  260,338  297,770  393,802  402,807   27,426   18,421

CHANGES FROM 08/16/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -18,879)
  -2,121    3,706  -14,590   -7,563  -10,239  -24,274  -21,123    5,395    2,244

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    11.8      5.0     19.9     61.8     70.7     93.5     95.6      6.5      4.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      124)
      30       17       35       68       66      113      106
```

----

Updated August 26, 2011
Laurenano Angulo RIASCOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5044.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*206Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Willie DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7317.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Opinion issued November 1, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-11-00633-CV

BRANDON LE AND MICHAEL VALENTINE, Appellants

V.

DON H. KONIPOL AND MANAGED MORTGAGE 

INVESTMENT FUND, LP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-36465

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Brandon Le and Michael Valentine, have neither established 

indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk=s 
2

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 

37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s 

fault). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants did 

not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Exhibit 23.2**** 11th Floor B Block    Union Square 5022Binhe Road    Shenzhen 518033P.R.ChinaTelephoneF+86-755-82900952FaxF+86-755-82900965**BDO China Li    Xin Da Hua CPA CO.,Ltd.** 
Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**
China TransInfo Technology Corp. andSubsidiaries 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333 -153153), Form S-3(No. 333 -162689) and Form S-8 (No. No.333-159777) of China TransInfo TechnologyCorp. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 31, 2010, relating to theconsolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO China Li Xin Da Hua CPAs Co., Ltd.                    

BDO China Li Xin Da Hua CPAs Co., Ltd.Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China March 31, 2010 

  |
Exhibit 31



CERTIFICATIONS

I, Conrad Clemiss, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Golden Patriot, Corp.;

2.

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

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

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

5.

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

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

---



b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 10, 2004

/s/ Conrad Clemiss

Conrad Clemiss

President and Chief Executive Officer
Anthony THOMAS, petitioner, v. Darrell VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-6550.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          27,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,826
<PP&E>                                          10,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,706
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           693
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,446
<SALES>                                         17,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,354
<CGS>                                              972
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (987)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,036)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/01/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       71,169
COMMITMENTS
     755    1,741   10,243   59,918   58,927   70,916   70,911      253      258

CHANGES FROM 10/25/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:          .)
       .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     1.1      2.4     14.4     84.2     82.8     99.6     99.6      0.4      0.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       3        4        5        8        9       13       17
```

----

Updated November 10, 2011
J.

, J. Saitta (listing orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken); see also Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and we order this appeal dismissed. When the district court enters a final order, if appellant is aggrieved by that order, he may appeal. See NRAP 3A(b)(1). It is so ORDERED. 2

cc: Hon. Gayle Nathan, District Judge Curtis L.D. Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

2 In light of this order, we deny appellant's emergency motion for stay as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULINO LUIS MARTINEZ-MENA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70946

Agency No. A095-617-745

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Paulino Luis Martinez-Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d

FILED

MAY 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-70946

1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Martinez-Mena is statutorily ineligible

for cancellation of removal because his conviction under California Penal Code

§ 422 is for a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Latter-Singh, 668 F.3d at 1163 (a

conviction under California Penal Code § 422 is categorically a crime involving

moral turpitude).

Martinez-Mena’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Gerald ADGER, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 18-7976.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.
CLINTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, petitioner, v. A.A.R., Natural Mother, et al.

No. 18-1226.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District denied.
2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-27-2013 

# I n R e: C lin t on B a r lo w E lm ale a n B o w s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 13-1063

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: C l in t on B a rlo w Elm ale a n Bo w s " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1072. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1072

### DLD

- 142 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 1063

___________ IN RE: CLINTON C. BARLOW ELMALEAN BOWSER a/k/a Elmalean Austin,

Petitioner s

____________________________________ On a Petitio n for Writ of Mandamus from the United State s District Court for the District of New Jersey

( 12

- 30150 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

March 7, 2013 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES , Circuit Judges

(O pinion filed : March 27, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM On January 10, 2013, petitioner Elmalean Bowser filed an appeal in the District Court from the Bankruptcy Judge’s order dismissing her case. Her nephew, petitioner Clinton C. Barlow, apparently acti ng with power of attorney for Bowser, concurrently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners ask us to remove Bowser’s bankruptcy case from the assigned Bankruptcy Judge, alleging that he exhibited racial bias in violation of her constitutional rights.

### 2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Not only are Petitioners’ allegations entirely unsubstantiated, Bowser’s bankruptcy ca se is now on appeal to the District Court. A mandamus petition is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd. , 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
Jonathan ZEPEDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8915.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, dated the date
of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Dehner, the Executive Vice
President and Treasurer 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 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:                November 8, 2002       /s/ Charles L. Dehner
                                            -----------------------------
                                         Charles L. Dehner
                                         Executive Vice President and Treasurer
                                         (Chief Financial Officer)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1211

_____________________________

TERRANCE HARTLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

October 24, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

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

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Terrance Hartley, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,431-02

EX P ARTE ANDREW G ARCIA, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1176954-A IN THE 185TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . N E W E L L , J., not participating. O R D E R Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenc ed to seventy y ear s’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Garcia v. State , No. 01-09-00958- C R (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 2011). Applicant filed this a pplication for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it t o t h i s C o u rt. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On 10-18-19, the trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues. The district cler k proper ly forwa rded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Ap p el l ate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of l aw. We rema

nd this application to the t rial court to complete its evidentiary investiga tion andmake f

indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law

. T h e t rial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections , proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 5, 2020 Do not publish