alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANC ISC O GONZALEZ ZAMUDIO, AKA Franc isc o Gonz a le z Zam udio, AKA Franc isc o Za

m u d io Gonz a l e z , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72319 Age n c y No. A037-442-070 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Franc isc o Gonz a le z Zam

udio, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r a ffirm ing a n im m igration judge ’ s re m ova l orde r. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de 

# FIL ED JAN 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).novo c onstitutiona l c ha lle n g e s a

nd que stions of la

w. Padilla-Martine

z v . Holde r , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C ir. 2014). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t the re c o rd e sta

blishe s tha

t Za m udio wa s c onvic te d unde r C a lifornia He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11378, for posse ssion for purpose of sa le of m e tha

m phe tam ine , whic h

c onstitute s a

c o ntrolle d substa

n c e viola tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(B )(i) that re nde rs him re m ova

b le . Se e Padilla-Martine

z , 770 F.3d a

t 831 n.3; Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th C ir. 2011) (sta

t ing tha t m e t ham phe tam ine is a

fe de ra l ly -c ontrolle d substa nc e ). The ple a form

spe c i fie s both thec ontrolle d substa nc e involve d a

nd the c ount in the c ha rging doc um e nt tha

t a lso na m e s the c ontrolle d substa nc e . Se e Murillo-Prado v
. Holde r , 735 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2013). Ac c ordingly , Zam u dio’ s c la im s tha

t his due proc e ss rights we re viola te d be c a use the re c ord doc um e nts a lle g e d ly did not e sta blish re m ova

bility fa ils. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (to pre va i l on a

due proc e ss c ha lle n g e , a

n a lie n m ust show e rror an d pre j udic e ). In a ddition, the

use of the June date on the Notic e to Appe ar did not de prive Zam

udio of a full a n d fa ir he aring. Se e Larita-Martine z v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ [d] ue proc e ss is sa tisfie d only

by a full a n d fa ir he aring” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.
1 3 - 7 2 3 1 9 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as anofficer of Voyager Oil & Gas Inc., that, to his knowledge, theQuarterly Report of Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Voyager Oil &Gas, Inc. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original ofthis statement has been provided to Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. andwill be retained by Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Date: August 11, 2010 | /s/ *James Russell (J.R.) Reger* |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                       | James Russell (J.R.) Reger       |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer          |
|                       |                             |
| Date: August 11, 2010 | /s/ *Mitchell R. Thompson*       |
|                       | Mitchell R. Thompson             |
|                       | Interim Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
# Official Journal C 322/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 322 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 592 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 322

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 592 September 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 322/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8133 — Carlyle/Logoplaste) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 322/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8133 — Carlyle/Logoplaste) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 322/02 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 September 2016 — Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 322/02

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 September 2016 — Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 322/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8042 — Centrica/Neas Energy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2016/C 322/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7995 — Deutsche Börse/London Stock Exchange Group) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2016/C 322/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8176 — Lindsay Goldberg/Flexibles Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 322/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8042 — Centrica/Neas Energy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2016/C 322/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7995 — Deutsche Börse/London Stock Exchange Group) (
  1
  )

1

4

2016/C 322/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8176 — Lindsay Goldberg/Flexibles Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:                November 15, 2010



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1375

SHIRLEY MARIE TRENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00710-HEH)

Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley Marie Trent, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1375 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Shirley Marie Trent appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint 

as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Trent v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., No. 3:21-cv-00710-

HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1375 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
METCALF v. CALL

414A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Ron David Metcalf, for Metcalf, Ron David

Kimberly N. Carpenter, Attorney at Law, Sylva, for Call, Susan Hyatt

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of March 2018 by Plaintiff to Reconsider:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

G. DAVID BROYLES; EMILY BROYLES;

CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 94-2584

v.

ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, Trustee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-93-3921-AW, BK-92-1-120-SD)

Argued: July 12, 1995

Decided: April 1, 1996

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and NORTON,

United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina,

sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Williams wrote the opinion, in

which Judge Luttig and Judge Norton joined.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Roger Schlossberg, SCHLOSSBERG & ASSOCIATES,

Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellant. John Sears Simcox, SIMCOX

& BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

After oral argument, we certified the following question to the

Court of Appeals of Maryland:

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-611(d), what is the effect on

the lien status of a confessed judgment when the state court

"opens" the judgment for a hearing on the merits without

affirmatively stating that the judgment lien is preserved[?]

Agreeing with the well-reasoned opinion of the bankruptcy court, the

Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that opening a confessed

judgment does not destroy the validity of the underlying judgment

lien:

We hold that opening a confessed judgment is a procedure

that allows the court to consider the merits of the defendant's defense to the action without destroying the judgment's validity. The judgment, and any judgment lien

derived from it, remain in effect while the court considers

the merits of the defense.

. . . .

We reject the Trustee's contention that opening a confessed judgment destroys the validity of the underlying

judgment lien unless the court order contains express affirmative language preserving the judgment.

Schlossberg v. Citizens Bank of Md., No. 25, slip op. at 8-9 (Md. Mar.

7, 1996). Because the priority status of the judgment lien is unaffected

by its opening, we hold that the district court properly affirmed the

bankruptcy court's lifting the automatic stay to permit the Circuit

Court for Prince George's County to determine the validity and

amount of the confessed judgment. The judgment of the district court,

therefore, is affirmed.

AFFIRMED
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 Clean Power Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Glatfelter, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 19, 2007

By:  /s/ Diane Glatfelter

Name:  Diane Glatfelter

Title:    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00428
- CV
GAYLELYNN R. KING AN D SARAH KING , Appellant s v. FLOYD WALKER , Appellee

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. C200700530

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants, Gaylelyn n R. King and Sarah King, appealed a judgment rendered against them pursuant to a jury trial. The appeal was referred to mediation. In response to a request for a mediation status report from the Kings, the Court received a letter dated June 2, 2010 from the Kings’ attorney informing the Court that he believed a settlement had been reached and was awaiting the signature of one of the parties. When no further information about the settlement was received, the Clerk of this Court again sent a letter to the Kings. By that letter, dated June 25, 2010, the Kings were notified that they must provide the Court with a motion to dismiss or a status reportKing v. Walker Page 2

regarding the appeal within 14 days from the date of the letter. The Clerk also warned the Kings that if the Court did not timely receive a motion to dismiss the appeal or a status report regarding the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. More than 14 days have passed, and we have not received a motion to dismiss the appeal or a stat us report regarding the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b). Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 12.1(b); Append ix to T EX
. R. A PP
. P ., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 5; 10 TH T EX
. A PP
. (W ACO ) L OC
. R. 5; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005); and § 51.208 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Under the se circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2. . The write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed by Gaylely nn R. King and Sarah King.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 28, 2010 [CV06]
SHEPPARD– ARMY 20100056

**UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**

Before

CONN, HOFFMAN, and CARLTON

Appellate Military Judges

**UNITED STATES, Appellee**

**v.**

**Private E2 KIARA J. SHEPPARD**

**United States Army, Appellant**

ARMY 20100056

Headquarters, United States Army Special Operations Command

Gary J. Brockington, Military Judge

Colonel Mark W. Seitsinger, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant:  Major Grace M. Gallagher, JA; Captain Jess B. Roberts, JA 

For Appellee:  Pursuant to A.C.C.A. Rule 15.2, no response filed. 

19 May 2010

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:  

The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for six months, forfeiture of $964 pay per month for six months, and reduction to Private E1.  Consistent with the staff judge advocate’s (SJA) erroneous recommendation, the convening authority approved the adjudged sentence, despite a valid pretrial agreement requiring the convening authority to disapprove confinement in excess of 120 days.  

Appellant noted the convening authority’s error in a footnote.  Appellant avers, in that footnote, that the confinement facility used the result of trial to properly establish appellant’s release date from confinement in accordance with the 120 day sentence limitation of the pretrial agreement.  Therefore, we find the error did not prejudice appellant.  *See**generally**United States v. Stanford*, 37 M.J. 388, 391 (C.M.A. 1993) (the court found no prejudice for convening authority’s failure to reference pretrial confinement credit ordered by the military judge in light of a prison official’s uncontradicted affidavit that appellant received the appropriate sentence credit).  We are confident the appropriate relief for the improper action is to affirm only so much of the sentence as is permitted under the terms of the pretrial agreement.  

We affirm the findings of guilty.  Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record, the court affirms only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, forfeiture of $964 pay per month for six months, and reduction to Private E1.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

1

2
STATE v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL

252PA14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2018

Ms. Barbara S. Blackman, Durham, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Campbell, Thomas Craig

Ms. Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Campbell, Thomas Craig

Mr. Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State *832The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of July 2018 by State of NC :

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of July 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 8th day of August 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal C 479/21 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 479 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5921 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 479

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5921 December 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2016/C 479/01 | Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities (whether for the Single Resolution Board, the Council, the Commission or otherwise) arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the financial year 2015, together with the replies of the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2016/C 479/01

Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities (whether for the Single Resolution Board, the Council, the Commission or otherwise) arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the financial year 2015, together with the replies of the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Table of Contents


EXHIBIT 12.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo, the Chief Financial Officer of Telemig Celular Participações S.A., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telemig Celular Participações S.A;

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 company as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officers 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 company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and to the audit committee of the companys board  of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.

|                               
|-------------------------------
|Date: June 30, 2005            
|                               
|/s/ Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo
|Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo    
|Chief Financial Officer        

---