alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7130

HARRY JARRELL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00040-FPS-JSK) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Harry Jarrell, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Dawn 

Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Harry Jarrell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Jarrell has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Jarrell’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**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 StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Mark L. Kay, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





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




*/s/
      Mark L. Kay*


*Mark
      L. Kay*


*Chief
      Executive Officer*




*November
      13, 2007*
#### George Bunkley, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed March 1, 1828.

*Murray Sams,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred PL. Davis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree, the defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation to mercy. Un*392der the statute a sentence to life imprisonment was imposed.

On writ of error it is considered that the evidence is insufficient to show the premeditated design to effect death that is essential to a conviction of murder in the first degree, therefore, the judgment is erroneous. See Smither v. State, 84 Fla. 498, 94 So. Rep. 156.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.

Strum, J., absent on account of illness.

Buford, J., dissents.
Sitting by assignment for the Honorable Abe Lopez. 1

NO. 07-07-0498-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 3, 2008

______________________________

CARL WAYNE HORNE, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 54,538-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE1

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Carl Wayne Horne, was convicted by a jury

of two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity and sentenced to twenty years

confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging his conviction. The
2

appellate record has not been filed. By letter dated December 20, 2007, this Court advised

Appellant that he had ten days in which to file a docketing statement. He responded by

letter filed December 27, 2007, inquiring whether he is the Appellant and, if so, how to

proceed in filing a docketing statement. He also indicated that he had requested courtappointed counsel in the trial court but had yet to be notified by anyone. In the interest of

judicial economy, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further

proceedings.

Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine

whether Appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel to represent him in this

appeal. Should the trial court determine that Appellant is indigent and desires to prosecute

this appeal, then it shall appoint counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address,

telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order

appointing counsel. Finally, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause them to be

included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed

with the Clerk of this Court on or before January 25, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I,
Kevin E. Shaffer, Chief Financial Officer of Educate, Inc. (the Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Kevin E. ShafferName: Kevin E. ShafferDate: November 8, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edgar True CORNING, Appellant.

No. 71-2547.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 13, 1972.

Murray B. Guterson (argued), of Culp, Dwyer, Guterson, & Grader, Anthony Savage, Jr., Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Laurence B. Finegold, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Albert E. Stephan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and MURRAY*, District Judge.

*

 Honorable W. D. Murray, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction in this criminal contempt case is reversed.

Well intentioned as the original order was for the taking of a deposition of Corning in a criminal case, we find that no rule or statute really authorized it at the time.

On cases arising after October, 1970, there is statutory authorization under Public Law 91-452 for depositions under certain circumstances.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01018-CV

NGAN BAO-NGUYEN LE A/K/A DILLION LE, Appellant

V.

MINDY TRAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-11626

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

According to information provided to this court, this appeal is from a 

judgment signed July 25, 2012. The clerk’s record was due November 22, 2012, 

but it was not filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On December 4, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 
2

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant 

has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record, and the clerk’s 

record has not been filed. 

The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
Order entered June 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00651-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.M. AND R.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-52721-07

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s June 1, 2015 motion to extend time to file docketing statement 

and ORDER the docketing statement be filed no later than July 1, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Order entered September 15, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00816-CR

EX PARTE BABAK TAHERZADEH

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-12037-J

ORDER

Appellant has filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the trial court’s 

order denying bail pending appeal. This is an accelerated appeal governed by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to

appeal and to file it with the clerk’s record.

We ORDER the D a l l a s County Di st r ic t Clerk to file the clerk’s

record by September 25, 2020. We ORDER that the clerk’s record contain copies 

of appellant’s motion requesting bail pending appeal; the State’s response; the trial 

court’s order denying bail pending appeal; any findings of fact and conclusions of 
–2–

law issued by the trial court regarding the denial of bail; the judgment of 

conviction in the underlying case; any other documents, pleadings, or motions

related to the application for bail; the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right 

to appeal; and any other documents requested by the parties.

We ORDER the court reporter to file, by September 25, 2020, the 

reporter’s record of the hearing on the application for bail pending appeal. In the 

event no hearing was conducted or no reporter’s record was made of the hearing, 

the court reporter shall file written verification that no reporter’s record was made.

We ORDER appellant’s brief filed by October 12, 2020. We ORDER the 

State to file its brief by October 27, 2020. The Court will notify the parties of the 

submission date and panel by letter. 

Appellant’s appeal of the judgment adjudicating his guilt and resulting 

sentence, proceeding under assigned appellate cause number 05-20-00587-CR, is a 

separate matter subject to the normal briefing schedule established by the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. The briefing submitted in this case under the 

accelerated schedule established above is to be strictly limited to issues arising 

from the denial of appellant’s request for bail pending appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable

Richard Beacom, sitting by assignment as Presiding Judge, Criminal District 
–3–

Court No. 3; Kimberly Xavier, official court reporter, Criminal District Court 

No. 3; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 10.5**

**Xerium Technologies, Inc.**

**Description ofCompensation for Non-Management Directors**

Cash Compensation 

Non-management directors receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000. For meetings held after March 31, 2009, non-management directors also receive $1,500 per director per meeting for attendingmeetings of the Board or any committee of the Board in person and $500 for attending meetings that last longer than one hour by telephone. The chairman of the Audit Committee also receives additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $10,000per year, and the chairman of the Compensation Committee and the chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee each receive additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $5,000 per year. These amounts are payable quarterly in arrearspromptly following the end of the quarter. Directors are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for attending board and committee meetings. 

Equity Compensation 

Non-management directors that serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders will receiveequity-based compensation in the form of a grant of restricted stock units following the annual meeting of stockholders in recognition of their services for the prior year. The number of restricted stock units granted to each non-management directoris calculated by dividing $40,000 by the average closing price per share of the Company’s common stock over the 20 trading days prior to the annual meeting of stockholders. Non-management directors whose service on the Company’s board isterminated prior to the next annual meeting of stockholders will also receive a grant of restricted stock units, calculated by dividing a pro-rated portion of $40,000 (based on the number of days served by the director since the prior annual meetingof stockholders) by the average closing price per share of the Company’s common stock over the 20 trading days prior to the director’s date of termination. In either case, the restricted stock units shall be granted promptly after the 20trading day period runs. 

Dividends, if any, in respect of these restricted stock units are paid at the same rate as dividends on theCompany’s common stock but are paid only in the form of additional restricted stock units. The restricted stock units are fully vested at grant. Upon the termination of the director’s service on the Company’s board, such director isentitled to receive the number of shares of common stock that equals the number of restricted stock units the director has earned. 

To theextent that a non-management director has already received equity compensation for a given period of service pursuant to a Company policy previously in effect, the equity compensation provisions of this policy will not be applicable to such directoruntil after the end of the period of service for which the equity compensation was previously awarded.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**NANOSENSORS,
      INC.**


**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 NanoSensors, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Baron,
        Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
        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.





Date:
                April 21, 2008
            
            /s/
                Robert BaronRobert
                BaronInterim
                Chief Executive Officer





*This
        Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after
        the
        date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
        in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by
        Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
        by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or its staff upon request* *.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 28, 2014

t0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

148182

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148182

COA: 316410 

Kent CC: 12-006579-FC

MICHAEL MALCOLM PIRANIAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2013 

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.
#### Leslie F. Schreitz, defendant below, plaintiff in error, *vs.*State of Delaware, plaintiff below, defendant in error.

*Justice of Peace—Construction of Chap. 128. Sec. 21, Rev. Code.*

The record of a Justice of the Peace, in a case of conviction of trespass, must show that the Justice fined the defendant an amount not exceeding five dollars and costs. Judgment will be reversed if the record shows that the Justice imposed a fine simply of costs,

*(October 2, 1897.)*

Dore, C. J., and Grubb and Pennbwill, J. J., sitting.

*Martin B. Burris*for the defendant below.

*P. L. Cooper, Jr.,*Deputy Attorney-General, -and *John H. Rodney,*for the State.

Superior Court, New Castle County,

September Term, 1897.

Certiorari to Charles H. Salmon a Justice of the Peace in and for New Castle County.

The record sent up by the Justice was in part as follows:

“ And now to wit, this 12th day of April A,. D. 1897, after hearing the allegations and proofs of T. H. Gilpin, plaintiff, C. F. Crockett and Benjamin Wilson, witnesses, I, the said justice, do adjudge the said Deslie F. Schreitz, defendant, guilty of tres*19pass, and do fine said’ Leslie E. Schreitz the costs of suit and place him under one hundred dollars bail for one year to keep the peace. Costs, $4.80.”

*Mr. Burris*filed a number of exceptions to the above record, the one relied upon being as follows:

‘ ‘ *First.*The record below, as returned, shows a judgment entered against Leslie E. Schreitz adjudging him ‘guilty of trespass, ’ and imposing upon him a fine of ‘costs of suit,’ whereas, the statute upon which this action below was brought, being a penal statute, and must be followed strictly, provides that the justice finding a person thereunder charged, guilty, ‘shall, for each offence, impose a fine of not more than five dollars and costs.’”

*Mr. Cooper*contended that the Judgment of the justice was within the statute; that he was authorized thereby to fine the defendant five dollars, also to fine him in addition thereto the costs, whether they be five dollars or five hundred dollars; and that he could either fine him the “five dollars and costs’ ’ or the costs alone.

Lorr, C. J:-—

We cannot construe that clause of the statute *(Sec. 21, Chap. 128, Rev.*Code) in the disjunctive; it is clearly in the conjunctive. The Justice must impose a fine, not exceeding five dollars, and costs.

Let the judgment be reversed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10877

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jason Jaime, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-6-34

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jason Jaime has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Jaime has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10877 Document: 00515902343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2021
No. 19-10877

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-10877 Document: 00515902343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2021
### yUl^l-CXS TO T~W c:V&y~Vi of r,Ve C2o\ayT ofcnw^c ^ (7 et. o r j -r- n APTertVT*



### ^,0^: A , 30, 01V4 

## d.c>-Pv 1A>\\ \$J$) . 5^a Wr fiUv^ Pro ^e, W I/jctI Wv-e Jvv>c6 -fdU/vd orVifi*- Av>7 Kw4 of" \v>-fovv^^r^Qv> Ni v^> t/>cW

•BECEIViDJff COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS FEB 022015 -AtetAftstarGlBrr
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Curtis L. Garner, Jr.     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |
| November 6, 2009          |   |