alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T O R A C IO S A N C H E Z -R E Y N A , a. k. a. H orac i o S anchez- R eyna, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 08- 71230 08- 74241 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 263- 554 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed pet i t i on s, O ra ci o S anchez- R eyna, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n of M exi co, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) or de r s de ny i ng hi s m ot i ons t o r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71230 2 r e o p e n . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . I n N o. 08- 71230, w e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . I n N o . 0 8 - 7 4 2 4 1 , w e d e n yin p a rt an dr e m a n din p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng S a nc he z - R e y na ’ s m ot i ons to r e o p e n b e c au s e th e B I A c o n s id e r e dth e e v id e n c e h e s u b m itte da n da c te dw ith in i t s br oa d di s c r e t i on i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s e i the rnotm a t e r i a l , not n e w , o rin s u f

f ic ie n t to w a rr a n t r e o p e n in g . Se e S i n g h v . I NS , 295 F . 3d 1037, 1039 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n s h a ll b e r e v e r s e dif it is

“ arbi trary , i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw ”) . I n i t s S e pt e m be r4, 2008, or de r , the B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on byc onc l udi ng thatS anchez- R eyna ov er st ay ed hi s vol un t ary departure peri od . A s both p art i es a gr e e , S a nc he z - R e y naobt a i ne d at e m por a rys t a yof vol unt a ryde pa rtur e w he n he t i m e l ype t i t i one d f

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s pr i orF e brua ry21, 2008, or de r , a nd m ove d t o s t a yhi s vol unt a ryde pa rtur e pr i ort o i t s e xpi r a t i on. W e the r e f or e r e m a nd N o . 0 8 -7 4 2 4 1 to th e B IA fo r th e lim it ed p u rp o se o f r ein statin g S an ch ez -R ey n a’s r e m a i ni ng vol unt a ryde pa rtur e pe r i od. I n No . 0 8 - 7 1 2 3 0 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D. In N o. 08 -742 41 : P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; R E M A N D E D i n p art.
##### 



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 filing of the Quarterly Report of Paragon Real Estate
Equity and Investment Trust (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending March 31, 2004 (the Report) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, James C. Mastandrea, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President and I, John J. Dee, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
President, of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TrustBy:
    
    /s/ James C. MastandreaDate: May 10, 2004
    
    
    
    James C. MastandreaChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TrustBy:
    
    /s/ John J. DeeDate: May 10, 2004
    
    
    
    John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
 -1-
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10895

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00142-MMH-PDB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROGER G JOLLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(October 21, 2014)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Craig L. Crawford, appointed counsel for Roger Jolley in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

Case: 14-10895 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Jolley’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10895 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5389 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5389

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol.

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

SECTION 1. O-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed April 15, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 01143

- CV

___________ LEROY STROMAN , Appellant

V.

ROXANN MARTINEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Ct at Law No 2 & Probate Ct

Brazoria County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 530200002

O R D E R

The reporter’s record of the Indigency Hearing taken by Robin Rios has
been filed in this case. Robin Rios, the court reporter , for the Co unty Court at Law
No 2 & Probate C our t informed this court that appellant had not requested the reporter’s rec ord. On February 27, 2014 , the clerk of this court notified appellant to provide proof to this court that they had requested preparation of this record within 15 days . Appellant filed no reply.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended August 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full compliances 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.



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/s/    THOMAS A. HYDE,
JR.
|Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.       
|Chief Executive Officer   
|November 21, 2005
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L AL B HA T I A, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. OFFI CE OF THE UNI TE D STATE S AT T ORNE Y, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 16250 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 9 - c v - 0 5 5 8 1 - SBA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S aundr aB . A rm s tr ong, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F e de r a l pr i s one rL a l B ha t i aappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d is m is s in g h is a c tio n a lle g in g v io la tio n s o f th e P r iv a c yA c t, 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 2 a , in c onne c t i on w i th hi s f

e de r a l c r i m i na l i ndi c tm e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 

# FI LED JAN 02 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16250 2 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, R o u s e vU .S. D e p ’ t o f S ta te , 567 F . 3d 408, 4 1 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d Bh a t i a ’ s c l a i ms u n d e r5 U . S. C. §§ 552( a ) ( d) ( 2) a nd ( e ) ( 5) be c aus e the r e c or ds he s oughtt o a m e nd w e r e e xe m pt fr om these P ri vacyA ctre qu i re m ent s und erD epartm entof Just i ce (“ D O J” ) r e g u la tio n s . See 28 C . F . R . § 1 6. 81 (a ), (d)( 3), (8); se e al so A lex an der v . U

ni ted Stat es , 78 7 F . 2d 13 49 , 13 51 -52 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( ho l di ng thatpl ai nt i ff w as “ barr ed fro m t ak i n g ad v an t ag e o f th e ci v i l rem ed i es affo rd ed b y th e P ri v acy A ct ” as a re sul tof D O J r egul at i on s e xem pt i ng arre stre cords m ai nt ai ned b y F eder al B ureau of Invest i gat i on ’ s I dent i fi ca t i on D i vi si on R ec ords S ys t em ). Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d Bh a t i a ’ s c l a i m u n d e r5 U . S. C. § 552a ( e ) ( 6) be c aus e B ha t i af a i l e d t o a l l e ge f

a c t s s how i ng tha tthe i nf orm a t i on p r o v id e d to th e g r a n d ju ryw a s n o t a c c u r a te . See R o se v. U ni ted Stat es , 905 F . 2d 12 57 , 12 59 (9th C i r. 19 90 ) ( l i st i ng el em ent s of P ri vacyA ctcl ai m ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g B h a tia ’s m o tio n to c o m p e l d is c o v e ryo rb ys ta y in g d is c o v e ry . Se e L aub v . U . S. D e p’ t of I nte r i or , 342 F . 3d 1080, 1093 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( di s c ove ryrul i ngs s houl d onl ybe di s turbe d on cl ear s ho w i ng of ac tual and sub st ant i al prej ud i ce ).11- 16250 3 B ha t i a ’ s pe ndi ng m ot i ons a r e de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
STATE v. Cornelius Alvin NOBLES.

No. 156A98-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Janet Moore, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Cornelius A. Nobles.

Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of September 2005 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court In conference this the 3rd day of November 2005."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Kroll-O'Gara Company
Cincinnati, Ohio

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
The Kroll-O'Gara Company on Form S-8 of our report dated March 13, 1997 (August
8, 1997 as to Notes 7 and 17 to the financial statements) appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Kroll-O'Gara Company for the year ended
December 31, 1997.


 /s/ Delloitte & Touche LLP


New York, New York
March 30, 1998
STATE of North Carolina v. John Alan MORTON.

No. 116P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for John Alan Morton.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th day of March 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of March 2006 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 29th day of June 2006."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30018

Summary Calendar

 

WARREN HENRY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden; RICHARD P. IEYOUB,

Attorney General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1678

- - - - - - - - - -

October 13, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Warren Henry, Louisiana prisoner # 77111, appeals the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. Henry

argues that the sentencing judge’s arbitrary and capricious

refusal to even consider the sentencing guidelines or the

sentencing alternatives available under the statute amounts to a

deprivation of liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause. 

It is not this court’s function in a habeas proceeding to review

a state’s interpretation of its own law. Weeks v. Scott, 55 F.3d
No. 97-30018

-2-

1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1995). However, to the extent that such

review is required by due process implications, the sentencing

judge did consider whether a lesser sentence would deprecate the

seriousness of the crime, and he also considered Henry’s history

of criminal conduct, which in the judge’s mind weighed against a

probated sentence. The judge also stated that there were no

extraordinary circumstances, which would take into account

mitigating factors. The state court’s finding that the judge

complied with the state statute, and the state court’s conclusion

that the sentencing judge was aware of, and properly exercised,

his discretion, did not involve an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see

Carter v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 1098, 1103 (5th Cir. 1997), petition

for cert. filed, No. 97-5538 (Aug. 8, 1997).

Henry argues that the resentencing hearing should have been

held before a different judge than the one who imposed the

original sentence. He contends that the judge used the

resentencing hearing as a forum for justifying his earlier ruling

rather than giving adequate consideration to the sentencing

guidelines. A due process violation does not automatically

result from resentencing by the same judge. “Absent proof that

the judge would refuse to exercise sentencing alternatives due to

actual bias or partiality, no federal constitutional right is

threatened.” Every v. Blackburn, 781 F.2d 1138, 1141 (5th Cir.

1986). There is no proof that the judge was biased or impartial. 
No. 97-30018

-3-

Henry has not shown that the state court’s decision involved an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Carter, 110 F.3d at 1103.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED ENTIRELY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,576                   2,706
<SECURITIES>                                    17,587                  18,039
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,139                   7,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,090                   1,345
<INVENTORY>                                        357                   1,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,995                  29,564
<PP&E>                                           4,365                   3,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,735                   1,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,473                  36,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,288                   5,954
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           130                     130
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,055                  26,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,473                  36,403
<SALES>                                         19,466                  25,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,087                  31,112
<CGS>                                            5,960                   5,256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,665                   8,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,107                  22,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29                     100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                      10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,019)                   1,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (857)                     406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,161)                   1,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,161)                   1,098
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.73)                    0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)                    0.08


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, John D. Reedy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, 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 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; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first
fiscal quarter of 2006 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 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
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; and

b) 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: May 11, 2006



/s/ John D. ReedyJohn D. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer