alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2993

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Toni Louise Hitchcock, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 15, 2010 Filed: March 29, 2010

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Toni Hitchcock challenges the 168-m onth sentence the district court 1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in refusing to vary downw ard to the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence.-2- We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case. This appeal falls within the scope of the waiver contained in Hitchcoc k’s plea agreement, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and we see nothing to suggest that a miscarriage of justice would result fro m enforcing the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court will enforce appeal waiver in plea agr eement when appeal falls w ithin scope of waiver, both waiver and plea agreement were ente red into knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Furthermore, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have f ound no non-frivolous issues beyond the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael
Jack Kugler , Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of
U.S. Precious Metals, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended February
28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date: April
15, 2009

|                                     | 
|------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ M. Jack
  Kugler                 | 
|                                     | 
|M. Jack
  Kugler                     | 
|Chief
  Executive Officer and        | 
|Chairman of
  the Board of Directors | 
|(Principal Executive
  Officer)      | 

---
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396



February 16, 2001



EAGLE TRADING SYSTEMS INC.
47 Hulfish St.
Suite 410
Princeton, NJ 08542

Attn: Menachem Sternberg

Re: Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.

Dear Menachem,

     Please  liquidate all of your positions in the above  referenced fund in an
orderly fashion  beginning  immediately.  This will  effectively  terminate your
management agreement with the fund.

     If you  have  any  questions,  please  call  myself  or  Jennifer  Magro at
(212)723-5424.

Very Truly Yours,

By:      /s/ Daniel A. Dantuono
         ----------------------
        Daniel A. Dantuono
        Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of
Vestin Group, Inc. (the Registrant), and Lance K. Bradford, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, that  (1)
    
    the Registrants Report on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period
ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with
the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Registrant. Dated: August 4, 2004
    /s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. ShustekChief Executive Officer, President and Director Dated: August 4, 2004
    /s/ Lance K. BradfordLance K. BradfordChief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35954

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05614-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination

FILED

APR 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“WALD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 817 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for

re-enrollment to the college, and whether she was denied re-enrollment because of

her disability. See E.R.K. v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 728 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir.

2013) (listing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of

the ADA and explaining the burden of persuasion on the “otherwise qualified”

element); Wong, 192 F.3d at 822 (discussing the definition of “qualified”); see also

Wash. State Commc’n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 293 P.3d 413, 421-

22 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of prima facie case of discrimination under the

WLAD).

We reject Robinson’s contentions concerning judicial bias, set forth in her

September 11, 2013 notice, as unsupported by the record. 

Tacoma Community College’s motion for judicial notice, filed on April 26,

2013, is granted. 

Robinson’s motion for judgment, filed on July 12, 2013, is denied. 

2 12-35954
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

(per curiam). 

AFFIRMED. 

3 12-35954
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of General Nutrition Centers, 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; and(c)
    
    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; 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: November 4, 2005
    /s/ Bruce E. BarkusBruce E. BarkusChief Executive Officer
COUNTY OF DURHAM v. BURNETTE

404A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Mary McCullers Reece, Attorney at Law, Smithfield, for Burnette, Robert.

Geri Ruzage, Senior Assistant County Attorney, for County of Durham, by and through Durham DSS, ex rel: Sharon L. Wilson and Tiffany A. King.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of February 2019 by Plaintiff for Permission to Provide Supplemental Authority:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
NNN DURHAM OFFICE PORTFOLIO 1, LLC, et al. v. HIGHWOODS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.

263P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 12, 2019

Thomas H. Stark, J. Anthony Penry, Seth Allen Neyhart, Attorney at Laws, Eric Hunt, for NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC, et al.

Michael T. Medford, J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorney at Laws, for Grubb & Ellis/Thomas Linderman Graham, et al

Jonathan D. Sasser, Jeremy M. Falcone, James Michael Weiss, Emily Erixson, Attorney at Laws, for Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of January 2019 by Attorney Jeremy M. Falcone to Withdraw as Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of March 2019."
STATE v. Quintin Sharod TAYLOR

32A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 26, 2019

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for Taylor, Quintin Sharod.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of March 2019 by Plaintiff-Appellee :

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of March 2019."

Plaintiff-Appellee shall have up to and including the 25th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**Exhibit32**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Northern Star Financial, Inc.and Subsidiary (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gerald W. Eick, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, andI, Thomas P. Stienessen, Chief Executive Officer and President, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | By     | /s/ Thomas P.  Stienessen                |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Thomas P.  Stienessen, CEO and President |
|   |   | Northern Star  Financial, Inc.           |
|   |   | September 22,  2003                      |
|   |   |                                     |   |
|   |   |                                     |   |
|   | By     | /s/ Gerald W.  Eick                      |   |
|   |   | Gerald W. Eick,  CFO and Treasurer       |
|   |   | Northern Star  Financial, Inc.           |
|   |   | September 22,  2003                      |
|        |        |                                          |        |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Northern Star Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NorthernStar Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131659 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131659 COA: 268321 Genesee CC: 04-014152-FH ANDRE NICHOLAS ROHNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60259 Summary Calendar

YASSIN SHEIK HAMUD, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 008 260

-------------------- March 7, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Yassin Sheik Hamud is a native of Somalia who attempted to enter this country in May 1999 with a fraudulent passport. This fraud was discovered, and removal proceedings were instituted against him. He conceded deportability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and, in the alternative, voluntary departure. After conducting a hearing, an immigration judge denied all of his claims and ordered him removed from the UnitedNo. 02-60259 -2- States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Hamud’s appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) because he failed to file a brief or statement after indicating that he would do so in his notice of appeal. Hamud now petitions this court for review of the BIA’s decision. Hamud has failed to brief, and has thus waived, the central issue whether the BIA erred in summarily dismissing his appeal. See Strong v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc. , 137 F.3d 844, 853 (5th Cir. 1998). Because he has waived this issue, he has not shown that the BIA erred in relying on 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) to summarily dismiss his appeal. Accordingly, his petition for review is DENIED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JENNIFER DIXON,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3157

______________________ 

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision in No. 

14-02610-3 by Arbitrator Trevor Bain. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JASON LEONARD ALDRICH, Gattey Baranic APLC, San 

Diego, CA, argued for petitioner. 

JAMES R. SWEET, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN 

MIZOGUCHI.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 5, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### Trula GARCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 81892.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 1, 2003.

*843Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Edgington, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Trula Garcia (“Garcia”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Garcia argues her plea counsel was ineffective because she failed to investigate her mental records and psychological history, and failed to obtain a mental evaluation that would have supported a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 21-7538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, 

at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00009-1)

Submitted: November 28, 2022 Decided: December 12, 2022

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Jermaine Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jermaine Taylor appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release, motions for reconsideration, 

and motions for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse 

of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate release and reconsideration 

based on the court’s conclusion that Taylor failed to demonstrate extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warranting his release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Nor do we find 

any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motions for an evidentiary 

hearing. See Richardson v. Kornegay, 3 F.4th 687, 695 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard 

of review for denial of evidentiary hearing in federal habeas corpus proceeding). 

Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Taylor, No. 3:15-cr-00009-1 (S.D.W. Va. 

Apr. 21, 2021, Aug. 2, 2021, Aug. 30, 2021, Sept. 16, 2021 & Oct. 15, 2021). 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: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2




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 annual report of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David C. Choi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the Company.





/s/    DAVID C. CHOIDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer





March 15, 2011
#### W. E. Yarborough, *Appellant,*v. Robert F. Demorest, *Appellee.*

Division A.

Decision Filed April 27, 1928.

J. *L. Frasee,*for Appellant;

*Walton & Dineen*and *A. 8. Crews,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in said decrees. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decrees of the Circuit Court be, and the same are hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.