alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Francisco LARA-AGUILAR, petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-6136.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ROMAN ROSAS-MARTINEZ, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-287

§

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Roman Rosas-Martinez, proceeding pro se, brought this Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable

Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to the applicable

laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the respondent’s

motion for summary judgment and dismissing the petition. 

To date, the parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The

court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. After

careful review, the court finds that the findings of facts and conclusion of law of the United States

Magistrate Judge are correct. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is 

Case 1:23-cv-00287-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 64
ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (#4) is GRANTED. A final

judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

2

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 4th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00287-MAC-CLS Document 7 Filed 01/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 65
Arthur Charles SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8857.

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.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-KSB of China World Trade
      Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Chi
      Ming Chan, Chief Executive Officer, and Man Ha, Principal Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, individually certify that:





*
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates
      and for the periods presented.





*/s/
                Chi Ming Chan*
              *Chi
                Ming Chan*
              *Director
                and Chief Executive Officer*
              
              *Dated:
                April 16, 2007*
              
              
              */s/
                Man Ha*
              *Man
                Ha*
              *Principal
                Financial Officer*
              
              *Dated:
                April 16, 2007*








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 required
      by Section 906, has been provided to China Mobility Solutions, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by China Mobility Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Albert Norman PIERRE, Sr., petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-5562.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,207
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,616
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,969
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          48,818
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            49,273
<LOANS>                                        250,306
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 322,702
<DEPOSITS>                                     271,185
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,804
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,758
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 322,702
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,119
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,794
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,913
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,787
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,787
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,126
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       13
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,917
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,917
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.38
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       231
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,372
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,385
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,385
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CRAIG LAMONT SCOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:95

- cr - 00202

- CCB

- 2 ; 1:16

- cv - 02042

- CCB )

Submitted : May 14, 2018 Decided: May 23, 2018

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Craig Lamont Scott , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Craig Lamont Scott 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 de nial 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 consti tutional 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 dispositi ve 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

J.C. FOSTER, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-116

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-ID, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner J.C. Foster, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable

Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration

pursuant to applicable laws and orders of the court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report

and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be denied. 

To date, the parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds

that the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report are correct. 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (#2) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will

be entered denying the petition.

Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An

appeal from a final judgment denying habeas relief may not proceed unless a certificate of

appealability is issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability

requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th

Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he would prevail

on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues raised in the petition are subject to

Case 9:23-cv-00116-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that

the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at

483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in

favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this

determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

Petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether this petition is meritorious is subject to

debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have been

consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of

encouragement to proceed further. Thus, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. 

2

Signed this date

Aug 24, 2023

Case 9:23-cv-00116-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16
| ·   | The      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | The      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the Company’s financial      condition and results ofoperations. |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2010 |   | /s/      Julie M. Pierce                                   |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date                |   | Julie      M. Pierce                                       |
|                |   | Senior      Vice President andChief      Financial Officer |

----
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/16/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      528,361
COMMITMENTS
  68,440   57,827  148,039  290,782  305,228  507,261  511,094   21,100   17,267

CHANGES FROM 10/09/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,859)
  -5,935   -1,459    4,733   -2,637    2,369   -3,839    5,643   11,698    2,216

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    13.0     10.9     28.0     55.0     57.8     96.0     96.7      4.0      3.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      148)
      35       39       56       68       65      138      127
```

----

Updated June 29, 2007
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Kay L. Toolson, CEO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Monaco CoachCorporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofMonaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Kay L. Toolson      |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Kay L. Toolson          |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, P. Martin Daley, CFO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such QuarterlyReport of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MonacoCoach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ P. Martin Daley     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | P. Martin Daley         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Roger W. MURRAY, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

No. 18-5271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report of Solitario Resources Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Maronick, 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 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.



|Date: April 22, 2004
By: /s/ James R. MaronickJames R. Maronick
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George R. THOMAS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-8839.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1290 

CA 15-00908 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

J.N.K. MACHINE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TBW, LTD., WOOLSCHLAGER, INC., AND BERNARD C. 

WOOLSCHLAGER, DEFENDANTS. 

--------------------------------------------------- 

TBW, LTD., WOOLSCHLAGER, INC., AND BERNARD C. 

WOOLSCHLAGER, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V

 

PAMELA LODESTRO, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

G. MARV SCHUVER, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, 

AND BART SCHUVER, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (PAUL V. WEBB, JR., OF

COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

FESSENDEN, LAUMER & DEANGELO, JAMESTOWN (CHARLES S. DEANGELO OF

COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County

(Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered September 16, 2014. The order

granted the motion of third-party defendant Bart Schuver to dismiss

the third-party complaint against him. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this breach of contract action, defendants-thirdparty plaintiffs (defendants) appeal from an order that granted the

motion of third-party defendant Bart Schuver to dismiss the thirdparty complaint against him. We affirm. In a prior appeal, we

affirmed an order denying defendants’ motion seeking leave to amend

their answer to include additional allegations in their counterclaim,

concluding that the proposed amendment “improperly sought relief that

was inconsistent with this Court’s decision in the prior appeal”

(J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 98 AD3d 1259, 1260). Inasmuch as the

allegations and relief sought in the third-party complaint are

substantially the same as the allegations and relief sought in

defendants’ proposed amended answer, we agree with Schuver that the

third-party complaint also improperly seeks relief inconsistent with

this Court’s decision in the prior appeal. In any event, because the
-2- 1290 

CA 15-00908 

allegations in the third-party complaint allege that Schuver was

acting as an agent for plaintiff, a disclosed principal, and there is

no clear and explicit evidence of any intention by Schuver to 

“ ‘superadd his personal liability for, or to, that of [plaintiff]’ ”

(Salzman Sign Co. v Beck, 10 NY2d 63, 67; see Savoy Record Co. v

Cardinal Export Corp., 15 NY2d 1, 4-6; Jones v Archibald, 45 AD2d 532,

534), the third-party complaint also was properly dismissed for

failure to state a cause of action against Schuver (see CPLR 3211 [a]

[7]).

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 27,
1997 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 27,1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000910721
<NAME> DM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             582
<SECURITIES>                                     3,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,883
<PP&E>                                           7,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,531
<BONDS>                                          6,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,839
<SALES>                                         89,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,077
<CGS>                                           39,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  86
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>