alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30886

Summary Calendar

__________________

BENJAMIN MACKEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary;

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-694-E)

______________________________________________

April 7, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Mackey, Louisiana inmate #126019, appeals the

dismissal, without prejudice, of his habeas petition for failure to

exhaust state remedies. We have carefully reviewed the arguments

and the appellate record. For essentially the same reasons upon

which the district court relied by adopting the magistrate judge's
2

report, see Mackey v. Cain, No. 96-694 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 1996), we

conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its finding

that Mackey did not present his federal habeas claim to the state

supreme court and therefore, the district court did not err in

basing dismissal on Mackey's failure to exhaust.

AFFIRMED.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RUSSELL K. HILL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 23-2270 (UNA)

)

UNITED STATES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Russell K. Hill is a Mississippi prisoner who currently is incarcerated at the 

Marshall County Correctional Facility in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Generally, petitioner 

challenges the Mississippi courts’ jurisdiction and demands his immediate release from custody.

A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th 

Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus 

action is a petitioner’s custodian, who ordinarily is the warden of the facility where a petitioner is 

detained. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434‒35 (2004). And this “district court may not 

entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is 

within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). The petition neither names petitioner’s custodian as a respondent, nor demonstrates that 

the proper respondent is in the District of Columbia.

The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), 

deny his motion for a three-judge panel (ECF No. 3), and dismiss his petition (ECF No. 1) without 

prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
2 

DATE: August 29, 2023 _______________________ 

CARL J. NICHOLS

 United States District Judge
Exhibit
      32.2





SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned,
      Robert E. Tomlinson, Chief Financial Officer of Onstream Media Corporation
      (the
      "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report").





The
      undersigned certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      12th
      day of January 2007.





ONSTREAM
                  MEDIA CORPORATION
                
                /s/
                  Robert E. Tomlinson
                Name:
                  Robert E. Tomlinson
                Title:
                  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1

            Transbotics Secures Order in the Food & Beverage Industry

    CHARLOTTE, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 15, 2004--Transbotics
Corporation, (OTCBB: TNSB) (www.transbotics.com), announced it has
finalized an order with a new customer for an automation system in the
food and beverage industry. The order totaling approximately
$2,000,000 is to be installed over the next 12 months and will include
multiple Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs), controls, hardware,
software, engineering services and other related equipment.
    "We are very pleased that we were chosen to provide this
automation solution for this very important project" stated Claude
Imbleau, President of Transbotics Corporation. "Our continued
investment in personnel as well as research and development is key to
providing unique automation solutions to our existing and potential
customers."
    For over 20 years Transbotics Corporation has specialized in the
design, development, support and installation of Automatic Guided
Vehicles (AGVs), or transportation robots, with an emphasis on
complete customer satisfaction. The company is a leading supplier of
Automatic Guided Vehicle Systems (AGVS), system retrofits and
upgrades, AGV controls technology, engineering services, AGV
batteries, chargers and other related automation products.
Transbotics' vehicles can be off-the-shelf or engineered-to-order.
Each Transbotics vehicle uses leading-edge hardware, software,
controls and components, including LazerWay(R) AGV control guidance
that provides optimal flexibility and accuracy. Transbotics is
committed to assisting its customers in increasing their
material-handling efficiencies, thus boosting their bottom line.
    Transbotics has provided unique automation solutions to a variety
of industries, including aerospace and defense, automotive (tier one
supplier), ceramics, chemical processing, entertainment, food and
beverage, newsprint and publishing, microelectronics, plastics,
primary metals and recycling. Transbotics' current customers include
Fortune 500 companies as well as small manufacturing companies.


    CONTACT: Transbotics Corporation
             Claude Imbleau, 704-362-1115, ext. 200
Supreme Court. Kings General Term,

February, 1861.

JEhnoit, *Brown*and Sorugham, Justices.

#### Peter Dawson, plaintiff in error, *v.*The People, defendants in error.

The proceedings of a County Court of Sessions on the trial of an indictment, will not be reviewed on writ of error by the Supreme Court, until a record of judgment shall have been made up and filed; and when a return to a writ of error Was defective in this respect, on motion of the district attorney, the writ of error was quashed.

This was a writ of error to the Court of Sessions of the county of Kings. The return contained an extract from the minutes kept by the clerk, showing that on the 10th December, 1858, the prisoner was arraigned for an assault and battery, with an intent to kill, and pleaded not guilty. Also, another extract from the minutes of the clerk, by which it appeared that on the 15th of December, 1858, the prisoner was tried for an assault and battery, with intent to kill, and found guilty by the jury. Also, an extract *stating*that on the 23d December, 1858, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison at Sing Sing, for nine years and six months. The last extract, as appeared by the certificate of the clerk, was a memorandum written in pencil upon a piece of paper pinned to one of the leaves of the book containing the minutes.

Ko record of judgment was returned, and never had been made up, and the clerk certified that he had made search for the indictment in his office, and was unable to find it.

*John Winslow*(District Attorney),

moved to quash the writ of error.

*S. H. Stuart,*for the plaintiff in error.

*By the*Court, Emott, J.

There is nothing brought before us by this writ of error but the rough minutes of the arraignment and trial of the plaintiff in error in the. King’s County Court of Sessions, together with' a copy of a memorandum, which is not even a part of the minutes, and a certificate that *119the indictment cannot be found. The clerk has neglected his duty to enter the judgment in the minutes, and the then district attorney failed to make up the record. (2 *R. S.,*738.) I do not perceive, however, that these omissions of the public officers can be at present of any avail to the prisoner. There is no judgment of the Court of Sessions brought up by the writ of error, and, therefore, there is nothing for us to reverse. The return does not disclose the fact of any judgment or sentence. I do not regard the pencil memorandum which the clerk certifies to be attached loosely to a book of the minutes of the Court of Sessions, as any part of a record. The prisoner cannot review the proceedings upon his trial by a writ of error until a record has been made up, and the 4th section of article one, title six, chap, two, part four of the Revised Statutes points out the manner of doing so, -and fully protects his rights.

The present writ of error should be quashed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 23

- 00597

- CV

Jason STAPLETON

, Appellant

v.

NAADE HOMES, LLC

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CV01712 Honorable Cesar Garcia , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due August 7, 2023 and was not filed. On August 21 , 2023,

we ordered appellant to fi le, by September 5 , 2023: (1) his brief; and (2) a written response

reasonably explaining his failure to timely file a brief. In our order, we cautioned the appellant that

if he failed to timely file a brief and written response, we would dismiss the appea l for want of

prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

Appellant did not respond to our order. Because appellant has failed to timely file a brief,

this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id.

PER CURIAM
MAGHREB PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, S.A., et al., Petitioners, v. John Paul DEJORIA.

No. 19-789.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
First Amendment to Territory License No. 8



 Exhibit 10.16.18 

 
 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

N T     C O N F I D E N T I A L 

 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERRITORY LICENSE NO. 8 

This First Amendment (“First Amendment”) to Territory License No. 8 (“TL 8”), with an effective date of December 1, 2011, to
the Data License Agreement (the “DLA”), dated December 1, 2002, by and between TeleNav, Inc. (formerly known as Televigation, Inc.; collectively referred to herein as “Client” or “LICENSEE”) and Navigation
Technologies Corporation (“NTC”), which was subsequently assigned by NTC to NAVTEQ North America, LLC (collectively “NT”), is made and entered into as of the date of last signature below (“First Amendment Effective
Date”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in the body of this First Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the DLA and TL 8. 

WHEREAS, NT and Client desire to amend certain provisions of TL 8 with this First Amendment; 
 WHEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	[*****] Program. In lieu of the pricing set forth in Sections 1-3 of Exhibit A to TL 8, the special pricing set forth below shall apply to Copies of the
Data which are distributed in connection with the [*****] Program described below to [*****] that are already in [*****] (“[*****] Copies”). For purposes of this First Amendment, “[*****] Program” means a [*****] program in which
[*****] of the Data provided by NT is distributed as a [*****] unit for all [*****] units in [*****]. For the sake of clarity, the foregoing does not include an optional [*****] program in which the distribution of [*****] of the Data is dependent
on the End-User opting into the program and/or paying for [*****]. The pricing set forth below is the amount of the License Fee to be paid by Client to NT for each [*****] and does not include any distribution costs or other costs to Client.


  

			
	 TERRITORY OF DATA
	  	 SPECIAL LICENSE FEE PER [*****] COPY

	 US/Canada Territory
	  	[*****]
		
	 United Stated & Mexico Territory
	  	[*****]
		
	 Latin America Territory
	  	[*****]

  

	2.	Except as otherwise modified herein, the terms of the DLA and TL 8 shall remain in full force and effect. 


*            *          
  * 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Fourteenth Amendment to be executed by their authorized representatives as of
the Fourteenth Amendment Effective Date. 
  

							
	NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC	  	TELENAV, INC.
				
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Stephen W. Kelley
	  	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas S. Miller

	 Name:
	 	Stephen W. Kelley	  	Name:	 	Douglas S. Miller
	 Title:
	 	Director	  	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	Date:	 	2/7/2012	  	Date:	 	1/9/2012


  

			
	 Amendment 1 to TL 8 (TeleNav 12-22-11gpd)

NA Consumer
  
	  	Page 1 of 1

 [*****] Certain
portions denoted with an asterisk have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC V Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and have:



1. 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 registrant, 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;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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



1. 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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|May 15, 2006 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                    
|------------ | ----------------------------------------------------
|             | Marc N. Teal                                        
|             | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC V Assignor Corp.
|             |
Emerald Zodwa NKOMO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 19-957.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET-WTI - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                      Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/30/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      421,510
COMMITMENTS
  65,745   45,415  114,379  224,069  250,452  404,193  410,246   17,317   11,264

CHANGES FROM 12/23/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,042)
   6,621      642   -1,281   -1,981    2,926    3,359    2,287      683    1,755

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.6     10.8     27.1     53.2     59.4     95.9     97.3      4.1      2.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      116)
      32       24       49       53       51      109      103
```

----

Updated January 2, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002
 
 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Visual Data Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: August 27, 2004

/s/ Randy S. SelmanRandy S. SelmanActing Chief Financial Officer
Michael Thomas GAUSSIRAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8250.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2018012EN.01001301.xml

| 13.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8684 — La Poste/Generali/Malakoff Médéric/EAP France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 12/04)

On 21 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8684. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8684. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Michael YAMASHITA, et al., Petitioners, v. SCHOLASTIC INC.

No. 19-894.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             136
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               4
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   466
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,663
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               2
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 2
<LOANS>                                         10,951
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,176
<DEPOSITS>                                      11,460
<SHORT-TERM>                                       679
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                375
<LONG-TERM>                                        400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  15,176
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    235
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   44
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     9
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   288
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 124
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 145
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              143
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      (8)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          58
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        58
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                        200
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 (113)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      (8)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                (113)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             (113)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>