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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6901

ROBERT LORENZO COFFEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-677)

Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 10, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lorenzo Coffey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lorenzo Coffey seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that

Coffey has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Coffey v. Smith, No. CA-01-677 (W.D.N.C.

May 16, 2002). Although Coffey contends that his motion to

voluntarily dismiss, filed on February 24, 2000, is still pending

before the state court, the issue raised in that motion was fully

considered and disposed of by the court in its order denying the

motion to vacate on June 27, 2000. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000). 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 31.2**

**RIVERROCK ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Hans Winkler, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the River RockEntertainment Authority;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)            Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: May 22,2006
| By:                             | /s/ HANS WINKLER |   |
|---------------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Hans Winkler                    |             |
| Acting Chief  Financial Officer |             |

 

 

----
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 report of China Architectural Engineering, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/  Luo Ken
YiLuo
      Ken YiChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2009/s/  Li
  ChengchengLi
      ChengchengChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to China Architectural Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by China
Architectural Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1111V
Filed: November 30, 2015
Not for Publication

*************************************
EULA JANE MATTHEWS , *
* Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
*
*************************************

Gil L. Daley, II, Fort Worth

, TX, for petitio ner. Althea W. Davis , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On November 30, 2015, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain

Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) caused by her November 18, 2011 receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s GBS , CIDP, or any other injury. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E -Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat.
2 899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’ s disclosure. If the special mast er, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public access. Damages decision based on stipulation; influenza (flu) vaccine;
Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (GBS); chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $150,000.00 , representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) (2012). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in
the amount of $150,000.00

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman
Laura D. Millman Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , eithe r separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 21.1





SUBSIDIARIES OF CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

As of February 20, 2008



|Name of Subsidiary                              | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization
|----------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------
|                                                |                                              
|Air Micronesia, Inc.                            |                                              
|Calair Capital Corporation                      |                                              
|Calair L.L.C.                                   |                                              
|CALFINCO Inc.                                   |                                              
|Century Casualty Company                        |                                              
|Continental Airlines de Mexico, S.A.            |                                              
|Continental Airlines Domain Name Limited        |                                              
|Continental Airlines Finance Trust II           |                                              
|Continental Airlines Fuel Purchasing Group, LLC |                                              
|Continental Airlines Purchasing Holdings LLC    |                                              
|Continental Airlines Purchasing Services LLC    |                                              
|Continental Express, Inc.                       |                                              
|Continental Micronesia, Inc.                    |                                              
|Presidents Club of Guam, Inc.                   |
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3162

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Melford Burke, Jr., also known as * District of Minnesota. Jim Burke, also known as Melford * Jim Whitefeather, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 1997 Filed: June 13, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Melford Burke pleaded gu ilty to abusive sexual contact with a minor female, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(1), and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment an d three years supervised release. We remanded for resentencing, because th e gove rnment

failed to provide evidence at Burke's sentencing hearing in support o f disputed factual statements in his presentence report (PSR) regarding whether Burke sexually abused the victim. See United States v. Burke , 80 F.3d 314 (8th Cir. 1996).The HON ORABLE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, United States District Judge 1 for the District of Minnesota. -2- On remand, the district court heard evidence on the disputed factual statements an d 1 reimposed the 120-month sentence. Burke appeals, and we affirm.
Burk e argues that the district court erred in denying his request for specifi c performance of his plea agreement. Reviewing de novo, we conclude the district court properly denied Burke's request because the government did not breach the ple a agreement. See United States v. Van Thournout , 100 F. 3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) (standar d of review). Burke agreed that his offense carried a maximum ten-yea r sentence, and the agreement contained no promise as to a specific sentence.
Burke also argues that the government's failure to offer evidence in support of the disputed PSR stateme nts at his original sentencing constituted a waiver of its right to present such evidence at res entencing. We disagree. We remanded because Burke had the right to insist that he be sent enced upon an adequate record, and we noted that certain e vidence would likely be admissible and sufficient to establish sexual abuse

. See Burke , 80 F.3d at 317. The distr ict court heard such evidence at resentencing and fo und it sufficient; Burke does not challenge this finding. Thus, Burke has now been afforded his right to be sentenced on an adequate record. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Claire Friedlander *v.*Henry Friedlander

*Henry Friedlander,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided June 17, 1993

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 903 (AC 11492), is denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 2, 2011

p0126 

# Order

February 2, 2011

141886 & (11)(12)

JONATHAN R. MOOTHART, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 141886 COA: 298462 Grand Traverse CC: 2010-027875-AL SECRETARY OF STATE, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Septem ber 22, 2010 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. The motion for peremptory reversal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 American Tire Distributors, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
E. Berry, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Report:

         (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 operation of the
Company.



/s/ WILLIAM E. BERRY
--------------------------------
William E. Berry
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
American Tire Distributors, Inc.
March 28, 2003
#### JAMES ARTHUR PRINGLE, JR. v. DANA FREEMAN PRINGLE

No. 7226DC761

(Filed 22 November 1972)

Appeal and Error § 62— stipulation that order contains reversible error — new trial

Appellant is entitled to a new trial where it was stipulated that the order appealed from contains reversible error.

Appeal by defendant from *Arbuckle, District Judge,*10 April 1972 Session of District Court held in Mecklenburg County.

*649*Olive, Howard & Downer by Leon Olive for plaintiff ap-pellee.*

*Ruff, Perry, Bond, Cobb, Wade & McNair by Hamlin L. Wade for defendant appellant.*

MALLARD, Chief Judge.

On 26 October 1972, the date this cause was calendared for oral argument in this court, the parties, through their respective counsel, filed a written stipulation which contains among other things the following:

“1. The Order entered by the Honorable Howard B. Ar-buclde, Jr., on April 20, 1972, in the above matter contains errors which subject it to being reversible on appeal.”

Inasmuch as the order dated 20 April 1972, in which reversible error was stipulated, was the order appealed from, the appellant is entitled to a new trial.

New trial.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Scott  Mac  Caughern, the Chief Executive Officer of Amnis Systems 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)  the  Annual  Report  on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended  December  31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or  78o(d));  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:  May 20, 2003

/s/  Scott Mac Caughern
Name:  Scott Mac Caughern
Title:  Chief Executive Officer


                                       44
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2010 |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                                   
|                        |  | Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer)
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 33-80732 for Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account Three on Form N-4.

                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
April 8, 2002
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2510

IRIS MCCLAIN , Debtor

- Appellant ,

v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a The Bank of New York, f/k/a JP Morgan Chase Bank, successor in interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; as Trustee, for GSMPS Mortgage Loan Trust 20032, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 20032 And Its Assignees And/Or Successors In Interest and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. , Creditors

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 03397

- TDC )

Submitted : April 4 , 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Iris McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah E. Meyer, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Iris McClain appeals the district court’s order s dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 , and denying her motion to
alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

. McCl ain v. The Bank of
N.Y. Mellon , No, 8:17

- cv
- 03397

- TDC (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2018; Dec. 11, 2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the distr ict court. 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