alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60298

Summary Calendar

LAURO GUTIERREZ-LLAMAS, also known as Larry Gutierrez 

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A08 149 517

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lauro Gutierrez-Llamas (Gutierrez), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision

affirming a final order of removal. Gutierrez argues that he is eligible for relief

under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (repealed), because that statute does not require

the existence of a corresponding or comparable ground of removability in order

to obtain discretionary relief, and the denial of relief under that section violates

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60298

2

equal protection. He also requests remand to pursue an application for

adjustment of status. 

To the extent that Gutierrez requests that he be allowed to apply for an

adjustment of status through his United States citizen daughter, he has not

adequately briefed this issue, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993), and we lack jurisdiction to address this claim because he did not request

this relief before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion of

administrative remedies); Falek v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 2007).

Gutierrez’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under § 1182(c) are foreclosed

by our precedent. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007); AvilezGranados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869 (5th Cir. 2007); Cantu v. Mukasey, 267

F. App’x 321 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).

The petition for review is DENIED.
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.   Date: June 8, 2012  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
William E. Meyer, Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BroadVision, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 14, 2005

|/s/WILLIAM E. MEYERWilliam E. Meyer
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Luis DOMINGUEZ

No. COA16-919

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

Attorney General Roy Cooper1 , by Assistant Attorney General Tracy Nayer, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.

1

When the briefs and records in this case were filed, Roy Cooper was Attorney General. Joshua H. Stein was sworn in as Attorney General on 1 January 2017.

CALABRIA, Judge.

Jose Luis Dominguez ("defendant") appeals from an order denying his motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-269 (2015). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's order.

On 10 August 2006, defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and indecent liberties. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 288 to 355 and 19 to 23 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, and this Court found no error. *State v. Dominguez* , 186 N.C. App. 305, 650 S.E.2d 675 (2007) (unpublished).

On 9 May 2016, defendant filed a *pro se* motion to locate and preserve evidence and for DNA testing. The court denied the motion by written order entered 8 June 2016. Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 16 June 2016.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant states that she is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch* , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so.

Defendant has not filed any documents on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time for him to do so has expired. In accordance with *Anders* , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issue of arguable merit appears therefrom. We are unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that defendant's appeal therefrom is wholly frivolous. As a result, the trial court's order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00098-CV

Appellant, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// Cross-Appellant,

Environmental Defense, Inc.

v.

Appellees, Environmental Defense, Inc. and Sierra Club// Cross-Appellees,

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, State Office of Administrative Hearings;

and Sandy Creek Energy Associates, L.P.

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-003957, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This case involves an interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal from the trial court’s

order granting in part and denying in part a plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellant the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This Court issued an opinion abating this cause on

April 13, 2007. The parties have now filed a joint motion to dismiss their respective appeal

and cross-appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. Accordingly, we reinstate this cause, grant the parties’

motion, and dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal. Id.
2

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Henson

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: October 10, 2008
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPI Holdco, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, O. Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ O. Joe Caldarelli O. Joe Caldarelli
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2005




---



##### 



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 CPI Holdco, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Joel Littman, Chief Financial Officer 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Joel Littman Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort and Casino (the "Company") does
hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the period ended October 31, 2004 (the "Report") 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 operations of the Company.



Dated: December 15, 2004                    By:


                                            /s/ Michael French
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael French
                                            Chief Executive Officer



Dated: December 15, 2004                    By:


                                            /s/ Richard Williams
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard Williams
                                            Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.



                                       4
IN RE Appeal by: Toney L. HARRELL and T.L. Harrell's Land Development Co., Inc., Petitioners, v. The MIDLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and The Town of Midland, Respondents.

No. COA16-646

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 30, 2016

AFFIRMED.
** **

** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

                                                                                

**Certification Pursuantto**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

** **

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2006 of Tripos, Inc. (the "Company") as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

** **

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  herebycertifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

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

(b)           information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.  

                                                                                /s/John P. McAlister

                                                                                JohnP. McAlister

                                                                                ChiefExecutive Officer

                                                                                &Chief Financial Officer

                                                                                April17, 2007

----
Fitzgerald v. Bosher.

S16A1267

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: November 7, 2016

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 05-16147) published on page 48133 of the issue for Tuesday, August 16, 2005.

                    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta heading, the entry for York Capital Management, L.P., New York                           ( print page 54925)                        Investment Limited, and New York Global Partners, L.P., all of New York, New York, is revised to read as follows:                

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1.  York Capital Management, L.P., York Investment Limited, York Global Value Partners, L.P., York Global Value Holdings, LLC, Dinan Management, LLC, York Offshore Holdings, Limited, Dinan Management, L.P., Dinan Management Corporation, and James G. Dinan (collectively, “York”)*, all of New York, New York, and York Global Value Holdings, L.P., York Global Value Holdings, LLC and James G. Dinan, individually and on behalf of the York group, to acquire up to 24.9 percent of the voting shares of PanAmerican Bancorp, Miami, Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of PanAmerican Bank, Miami, Florida.                

Comments on this application must be received by October 4, 2005.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 14, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-18597 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2009006EN.01002601.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Scil proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)

affilene

(Case T-87/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark affilene - Earlier Community word mark AFFILIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 6/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scil proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by: V. Dalichau and I.-M. Helbig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Scil proteins GmbH and Indena SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Peter Michael Vallejo

No. 43P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Vallejo, Peter Michael.

Natalie Bacon, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of February 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
Johnnie M. DARDEN, Sr. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

No. 437P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Michael A. Jones, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Darden, Johnnie M.

Tammera S. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, For Department of Public Safety.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of December 2016 by Petitioner 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:

*13"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-KSB of Xechem International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Ramesh
C. Pandey, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his 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.

                                 /s/ Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                 ------------------------
                                 Name:    Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                 Title:   Chief Executive Officer
                                 Date:    April 14, 2004

                                 /s/ Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                 ------------------------
                                 Name:    Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                 Title:   Chief Financial Officer
                                 Date:    April 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      10,798,372
<SECURITIES>                                 4,485,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,696,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,565,291
<INVENTORY>                                    571,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,879,958
<PP&E>                                      11,306,560
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,467,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,932,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,128,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,795
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,516,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,932,934
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,548,725
<CGS>                                        8,298,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,758,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,255,622)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (24,252,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (24,252,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Constance Michelle Sheperd

No. COA16-270

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO ERROR.