alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08 -022 1-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 6, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BAR RY D W AY NE M IN NF EE, Appel lan t v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; ST NO. 43, 519 -C; HON. ANA EST EVE Z, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Bar ry Dway ne Mi nnfee attempt s to appeal hisconv icti on of burg lar y of a habi tati on. Sen ten ce w as imp osed on Jan uary 28, 200 2. How ever, not ice of app eal was no t f iled un til Ma y 16, 2008. W e di smi ssfor want o f jur is dicti on. T o be timely, a not ice of app eal must be f iled w ithin 30 days af ter the sente nce is impos ed or susp ended in open cour t or w it hin 90 days after that date i f a moti on for newT he a ppr opr i at e v ehi cl e forseeki ng a n ou t - of - t i m e ap peal fr om a f i nal fe l onyconvi ct i on i s bywr i t of 1 h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t t o a rti c l e 1 1 .0 7 o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f C rim i n a l P ro c e d u re . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . a rt. 1 1 .0 7 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). 2 tr ial i s fil ed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2( a) . Appel lan t’ s noti ce of appeal w as cl ear ly fil ed after

the appropr iat e deadl ine . A ti mely fil ed notic e of appeal i s e ss enti al to i nv oke our appel lat e j ur is dicti on. Olivo v. State, 918 S. W .2d 5 19, 5 22 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996 ). If it i s u nti mely , we c an ta ke no act ion other

than to dis mis s t he proceed ing . Id. at 523 . A ppe llant’s no tice be ing untime ly f iled, w e ha v e no jurisdiction over the ma tter an d dism iss the ap pea l. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s a ppeal i s d is mis sed. 1
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice
Do not p ubl is h.
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 New York Mortgage Trust, Inc, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 6, 2009
            
            /s/ Steven
      R. MummaSteven
      R. Mumma
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Executive and Principal Financial
Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Wesley WHEELER.

No. 182P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Thomas Wesley Wheeler.

E. Clementine Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of April 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TONY LEE EPPERSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-05-10) Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 22, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., PC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The guideline provision for obstruction of justice, like that for perjury, has a base offense level of fourteen. SeeUSSG §§ 2J1.2(a); 2J1.3(a). Likewise, both provisions provide for a - 2 - PER CURIAM: Tony Lee Epperson pled guilty to one count of making a false statement to a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2000). Epperson was assigned an offense level of fourteen, criminal history category IV, and sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Epperson contends his sentence is unreasonable as the district court improperly accepted the probation officer’s recommendation to apply U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2J1.3(a) (2004). We affirm. When reviewing the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). A sentence is unreasonable if based on an error in construing or applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 456-57. At sentencing, rather than merely accepting the recommendation of the probation officer, the district court deemed, and Epperson conceded, that the obstruction of justice enhancement authorized by USSG § 2J1.2 better reflected Epperson’s conduct. However, even if the court had applied a perjury enhancement pursuant to § 2J1.3, Epperson could not establish harm as the guideline range remained unchanged. * Therefore, we concludethree-level increase for substantial interference with the administration of justice. See USSG §§ 2J1.2(b)(2); 2J1.3(b)(2). - 3 - Epperson’s thirty-three month sentence, which was within a properly calculated guidelines range, is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Epperson’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         I, John M. Sharpe, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Inner Systems, Inc., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Inner
Systems, Inc.

         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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and I have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to me
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

                  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on such
evaluation.

         5. I have disclosed, based upon my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls over financial reporting.

         6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    November 19, 2007              By: /s/ John M. Sharpe, Jr.
                                            -----------------------
                                            John M. Sharpe, Jr., President
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Chief Financial Officer
SHOOK v. STATE of NC.

No. 50P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of January 2005 by Plaintiff for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of February 2005."
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41593 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. HERMELINDO SEGUNDO, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15 -CR- 1001 -1

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hermelindo Segundo was sentenced to 70 months ’ imprisonment, following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § § 1326(a), (b). He contends the district court erred in applying the 16 -level crime -ofvio lence enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his sentencing, based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation

. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.).

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not Great be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 24, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41593 Document: 00513965679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2017No. 15

- 41593

2 Although post

- Booker , the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 48

– 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse -of- discretion standard. Id . at 51; United States v. Delgado

Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 751

– 53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros

Gutierrez , 51 7 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)

. In 2008 , Segundo was convicted of burglary of a habitation, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 3 0.02 (a). Because § 30.02(a) is divisible , the court, under the modified categorical approach, may c onsider certain state documents. See United States v. Uribe , 838 F.3d 667, 670

– 71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , 2017 WL 661924 (20 Mar. 2017). These doc uments show Segundo was convicted under § 30.02(a)(1), which constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling under the Guidelines

. Id. ; United States v. Conde -Castaneda , 753 F.3d 172, 178

– 79 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the court did not err in applying the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015 ed.); Uribe , 838 F.3d at 671. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-41593 Document: 00513965679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jonathan G. Arens, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Desert Capital
REIT, Inc.;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(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 registrant
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
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;b)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):  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 registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    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. Date: November 29, 2004 /s/ JONATHAN G. ARENSJonathan G. ArensChief Financial Officer
STATE v. Ronald Lee POINDEXTER.

No. 563A99-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 28, 2004.

Ellen B. Scouten, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State.

Jonathan L. Megerian, Asheboro, Gretchen M. Engel, Durham, for Poindexter.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of April 2004 by Defendant to Deem Transcript Timely Delivered:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of May 2004."
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, John
M. Sharpe, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of INNER SYSTEMS, INC. (the “Company”),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th day of August, 2012.



| | /s/ John M. Sharpe, Jr.                            
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | John M. Sharpe, Jr.                                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



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

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 September 2005

(2005/C 239/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1749

In re: HAROLD EUGENE PATTON , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 1:17

- cv
- 00186

- TSK

- MJA )

Submitted : February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Harold Eugene Patton, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harold Eugene Patton , Jr. , petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act or release him

. Our review of the dis trict court’s docket reveals that the district court recently took significant action on Patton’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process
PETITION DENIED
---

Exhibit 13 (a) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul Averback, President and CEO of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation, do hereby certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation. Date: March 14, 2014 /s/ Paul Averback, MDPaul Averback, MDPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNymox Pharmaceutical Corporation


---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NEW YORK
HEALTH  CARE, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31,  1999 AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      97114
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              6364857
<ALLOWANCES>                               (341000)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           6860679
<PP&E>                                      690966
<DEPRECIATION>                             (209049)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            10333152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5100670
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                   5904
<COMMON>                                     37500
<OTHER-SE>                                 4994015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               10333152
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          23772346
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             17164782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           6451403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            236000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          323100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (402939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                180000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (222939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (222939)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .(06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .(06)


</TABLE>