alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Joseph W. HILL, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-9138.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ramon ROMERO, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-7889.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Reginald Ray YORK, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-6546.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Phillip A. Perillo, the Chief Financial Officer of Quotesmith.com, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

|/s/ PHILLIP A. PERILLOName: Phillip A. Perillo
Title:Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 18, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

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

This
certification accompanies the report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

1

 We grant Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of probable cause and dispose of

his appeal on the merits. Grant v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 466 (1967). We also grant

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/19/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

CARLTON PETERS, )

)

Petitioner-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) No. 95-5257

) (D.C. No. 94-C-389-B)

R. MICHAEL CODY, ) (N.D. Okla.)

)

Respondent-Appellee. )

 

ORDER and JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

 

Petitioner Carlton Peters, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We exercise jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1
2

On appeal, Petitioner argues the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: (1) the district court

erred in holding he was procedurally barred from raising an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim in the instant petition; (2) the district court erroneously refused to grant him

an evidentiary hearing; (3) he was denied a direct appeal in violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) his attorney deprived him of his constitutional right to

appeal his conviction.

We have reviewed Petitioners’ brief, the district court’s order, and the record

before us. Based upon our review of the record, we have determined there is no reversible

error and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.

AFFIRMED

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock
Daniel PETRIC, petitioner, v. Charmaine BRACY, Warden.

No. 17-5720.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio 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 VALENTIN E , Appellant s

V.

DON H. KONIPOL AND MANAGED MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND, LP , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 36465



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant s, Brandon Le and Michael Valentine, ha ve neither established
indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk = s2

record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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, appellant s did
not adequately respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.
Roger K. WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 18-8140.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 136

To limit the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency to ban metered-dose inhalers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. KLINK, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. BOYD, and

Mrs. KELLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To limit the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ban metered-dose inhalers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Asthma Inhalers Regu5 latory Relief Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT

7 TO BAN METERED-DOSE INHALERS.

8 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection

9 Agency may not, under title VI of the Clean Air Act, pro10 hibit the manufacture, distribution, or sale of metered-
2

HR 136 IH

1 dose inhalers that use chlorofluorocarbons unless the Ad2 ministrator and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs

3 jointly certify to the Congress that alternatives to such

4 inhalers are available that, for all populations of users of

5 such inhalers, are comparable in terms of safety and effec6 tiveness, costs, and retail availability.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW
EXAMINERS :

:

:

:

: NO. 867

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16 th day of February , 20 21

, Jennifer M. Gardner, Esquire,

Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Law

Examiners for a term of three years, commencing April 1, 2021

.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/08/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       68,245
COMMITMENTS
  24,380    2,753    6,561   21,058   43,947   51,999   53,261   16,246   14,984

CHANGES FROM 02/01/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,624)
   1,579     -328     -567   -1,794      124     -782     -771   -1,842   -1,853

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    35.7      4.0      9.6     30.9     64.4     76.2     78.0     23.8     22.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       90)
      42        8       18       27       26       74       48
```

----

Updated February 11, 2011
James F. OLIVEIRA, petitioner, v. Patricia A. COYNE-FAGUE, et al.

No. 18-8443.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Curtis T. LOVELACE, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-809.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Motion of The Fines and Fees Justice Center, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Motion of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari *2011to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District denied.
Kimberly Dawn PALMER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9190.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 Annual  Report of Patriot  Gold Corp.  on Form
10-KSB/A for the period  ending May 31, 2003, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Ronald C. Blomkamp,
Chief Executive and Financial  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 and belief:

         (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.


By:  /s/    Ronald C. Blomkamp
Ronald C. Blomkamp
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

September 28, 2004



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00560-CR

Nico Allen-Antonio COGDILL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 18th Judicial District Court, Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F45973

Honorable John Edward Neill, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

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

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED September 17, 2014.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
DeMarcus HARDY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9591.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MANUEL BUENFIL CATALAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00075-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: September 17, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States 

Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Buenfil Catalan pleaded guilty to illegally 

reentering the United States after having previously been 

removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district 

court sentenced Catalan to forty-six months of imprisonment and 

he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Catalan argues on appeal that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to raise several arguments in mitigation 

at Catalan’s sentencing. To prove a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s 

performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient 

performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the 

defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In 

addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be 

highly deferential.” Id. at 689. 

Moreover, we may address a claim of ineffective 

assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the record. United States v. 

Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Catalan has 

failed to demonstrate that ineffective assistance of counsel 
3

conclusively appears on the record. We therefore decline to 

address this argument on direct appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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 in the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Crystal WADE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE.

No. 18-1047.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Arturo HUERTA, petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden.

No. 18-7641.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Eric Joseph LAURSON, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 18-7983.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
EX-10.2




 Exhibit 10.2 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

ARAVIVE, INC. 
 2014
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This First Amendment (the “First Amendment”) to the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) is made pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Plan. 
 Recitals: 

WHEREAS, the Plan was originally adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on March 3, 2014 and approved by the stockholders
on March 5, 2014; 
 WHEREAS, on October 12, 2018, Versartis, Inc. and Aravive Biologics, Inc. completed a merger and
reorganization (the “Merger”), pursuant to which Aravive Biologics, Inc. survived as our wholly owned subsidiary and Versartis, Inc. ultimately changed its name to “Aravive, Inc.”; 

WHEREAS, in connection with the completion of the Merger, on October 15, 2018, the amended and restated certificate of
incorporation of the Company was amended to effect, at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on October 16, 2018, a reverse stock split (“Reverse Stock Split”) of the Common Stock at a ratio of 1-for-6; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes it is necessary and advisable and
in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to increase the authorized shares available under Section 3(d)(i) of the Plan titled “Section 162(m) Limitations.” 

NOW THEREFORE, Section 3(d)(i) of the Plan titled “Section 162(m) Limitations” is hereby amended as follows: 

The share amount in Section 3(d)(i) shall remain “173,913 shares of Common Stock”, which reflects an increase in the shares
reserved for grant under Section 3(d)(i) of the Plan such that this number of shares is not impacted by the Reverse Stock Split. 
 All
other terms and conditions of the Plan not otherwise modified hereby shall remain in full force and effect. The First Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors on February 28, 2019. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this First Amendment to the Plan as of February 28, 2019. 

 

			
	ARAVIVE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jay P. Shepard

	Name:	 	Jay P. Shepard
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
Marciano Millan VASQUEZ, aka Chano, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6672.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HENRY JOHNSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case Nos. 2D17-2561

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 16, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Frances M. Perrone, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, III, Public Defender, and 

Alisa Smith, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Pedro GORIS, aka Pedro Goriz, aka Pedro Abreu, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7566.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Drew PETERSON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-9464.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Anthony L. PIERCE, petitioner, v. Brad LIVINGSTON, et al.

No. 18M135.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-2-1998
<CASH>                                          37,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,039
<INVENTORY>                                    121,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,771
<PP&E>                                         243,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 605,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          266,519
<BONDS>                                        274,898
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   605,512
<SALES>                                        270,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               270,742
<CGS>                                           90,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  253,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,241
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1544

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UPLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

ENTERPRISE RENTAL CAR; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

DOLLAR RENT A CAR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-04796-TLW)

Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing his complaint for failing to comply with a court 

order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Stritzinger’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for 

the district court’s disposition, Stritzinger has forfeited appellate review of the court’s 

order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, although we grant Stritzinger leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. 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.

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




In
connection with the quarterly report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tali Dinar, Chief
Financial 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
my knowledge:




(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




August
      23, 2010
                /s/
      Tali DinarTali
      DinarChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)