alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Siano *v.*Warden, State Prison

*James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*James Moreno,*special public defender, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1993

The respondent warden’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 94 (AC 11255), is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000051387
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          313,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,155,513
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5



<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                          19,473
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    1,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                21,285
<PP&E>                                                           2,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  (4,048)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 155,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           72,016
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                         3,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                      79,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   155,466
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     0
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               223,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (223,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (223,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (223,682)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (.05)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Saed Mohseni, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmick’s SeafoodRestaurants, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) [Reserved];

 

(c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 8, 2005

 
|   | /s/ SAED MOHSENI        |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Saed Mohseni            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 30, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 1 5 - 00 0 89 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 00090 - CR DEREK LYNN JEFFERY , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 14 - 16488 - R, F14 - 75920 - R 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Schenck Opinion b y Justice Lang

- Miers Derek Lynn Jeffery waived a jury and pleaded guilty to indecency with a child a nd failure to register as a sex offender
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.11(a)(2) (West 2011); T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 62.102(a) (West Supp. 201 5 ) . The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years’ imprisonment on the indecency with a child and two years’ confinement in a state jail on the failure to register as a sex offender
. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional- 2
- evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief
. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases)
. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothi ng in the record that might arguably support the appeal s . We affirm t h e trial court’s judgment s .

Do Not Publish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 150089F.U05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE- 3
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** 
JUDGMENT
DEREK LYNN JEFFERY , Appellant No. 05

- 15

- 00089

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F14

- 16488

- R). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers, Justi ces Bridges and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered November 30, 2015.- 4
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
DEREK LYNN JEFFERY , Ap pellant No. 05

- 15

- 00090

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F14

- 75920

- R). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers, Justices Bridges and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered November 30, 2015.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Swisscom AG, a Swiss
company (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 20, 2005 /s/ Jens AlderJens AlderChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Swisscom AG, a Swiss
company (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 20, 2005 /s/ Ueli DietikerUeli DietikerChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xtra-Gold Resources Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JOHN ROSS, Chief Financial Officer of our company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (a)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b)the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:November 10, 2010/s/John Charles Ross  By:John Charles RossPrincipal Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by our company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5366 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5366

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the proposal for debarment from contracting with the Federal 
 Government of persons violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 
                                 1977.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Overseas Contractor Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PROPOSE FOR DEBARMENT PERSONS VIOLATING THE 
              FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.

    (a) Requirement To Propose for Debarment.--Unless waived by the 
head of a Federal agency under subsection (b), any person found to be 
in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 shall be 
proposed for debarment from any contract or grant awarded by the 
Federal Government within 30 days after a final judgment of such 
violation.
    (b) Waiver.--The head of a Federal agency may waive this section 
for a Federal contract or grant. Any such waiver shall be reported to 
Congress by the head of the agency concerned within 30 days from the 
date of the waiver, along with an accompanying justification.
    (c) Final Judgment.--For purposes of this section, a judgment 
becomes final when all appeals of the judgment have been finally 
determined, or all time for filing such appeals has expired.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a binding 
        agreement entered into by a Federal agency for the purpose of 
        obtaining property or services.
            (2) Person.--The term ``person'' includes--
                    (A) an individual;
                    (B) a partnership; and
                    (C) a corporation.
            (3) Foreign corrupt practices act of 1977.--The term 
        ``Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977'' means--
                    (A) section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 
                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1); and
                    (B) sections 104 and 104A of the Foreign Corrupt 
                Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2).

SEC. 3. GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States Government that no Government 
contracts or grants should be awarded to individuals or companies who 
violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5366

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the proposal for debarment from contracting with the Federal 
 Government of persons violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 
                                 1977.
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5128 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States Department of the Interior 

Building in Washington, District of Columbia, as the 

‘‘Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5128 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States Department of the Interior Build3 ing located at 1849 C Street, Northwest, in Washington, 

4 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Build6 ing’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 record, or other paper of the United States to the building 

10 referred to in section 1 shall be considered to be a ref11 erence to the ‘‘Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Inte12 rior Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO BELTRAN

- FLORES,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 71828 Agency No. A087

- 595

- 599

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 24, 2016 ** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Francisco Beltran

- Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Imm igration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 71828

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact

. Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003)

. We deny the petition for review. Although Beltran

- Flores argues he has a well

- founded fear of p ersecution, he does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he did not qualify for any exception to the one

- year bar.
See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim. Beltran

- Flores does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution, and substantial evidence suppo rts the agency’s finding that he failed to establish a nexus between his feared future harm and a protected ground

. See Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) ( under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “ one central reason” for persecution); see also Pagayon v. Holder , 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute , standing alone, doe s not constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Beltran

- Flores’ withh olding of removal claim.3 13

- 71828

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Beltran

- Flores’ CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11191

Conference Calendar

__________________

JOSEPH CENTOFANTI,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LYLE G. HALLIBURTON,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-219

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Centofanti appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Centofanti alleges that Lyle Halliburton, a guard in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, violated his constitutional

rights because Halliburton would not allow Centofanti to wear a

back brace on a bus ride to Galveston Hospital although

Centofanti had permission to wear the brace only during work.

A complaint filed in forma pauperis (IFP) may be dismissed

if the complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v.

Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). "An action is frivolous if
No. 95-11191

-2-

it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Graves v.

Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted). A

§ 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.

"[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth

Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both

be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw

the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994).

The dismissal of Centofanti's complaint was not an abuse of

discretion. Centofanti's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution Centofanti that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Centofanti is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.