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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 30, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GENE FRANKLIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-3358

(D. Kansas)

(D.C. Nos. 2:09-CV-02439-JWL and

2:06-CR-20176-JWL-1)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Gene Franklin’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Franklin seeks a COA so he can appeal the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 

Because Franklin has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and

dismisses this appeal.

Following a jury trial, Franklin was convicted of two counts of aiding or

assisting in the preparation or filing of false or fraudulent federal income tax

returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). Franklin did not appeal his

convictions. Instead, he filed the instant § 2255 motion, raising thirteen general
-2-

grounds for relief. In a thorough order, the district court denied Franklin’s § 2255

motion. In so doing, the district court noted that the vast majority of Franklin’s

claims were inherently incredible, conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, or

“hackneyed tax protestor” refrains consistently rejected by the federal courts. 

See, e.g., United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990).

The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Franklin’s appeal

from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003). To be entitled to a COA, Franklin must make “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the

requisite showing, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether

(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Id. (quotations omitted). In evaluating

whether Franklin has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary,

though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each

of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Franklin need not demonstrate his appeal will

succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence

of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id.

Having undertaken a review of Franklin’s appellate filings, the district

court’s order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework

set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, we conclude Franklin is not entitled to
-3-

a COA. The district court’s thorough and considered resolution of Franklin’s

§ 2255 motion is not reasonably subject to debate and the issues he seeks to raise

on appeal are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, this

court DENIES Franklin’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
#### STATE v. HAGLER

No. 98 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 444.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 May 1977.
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.

 September 30, 2013

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

146696

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146696

COA: 306624

Calhoun CC: 2011-001704-FC

BRANDON KIJUAN FIELDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2012 

judgment 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.
#### McGEE v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 72.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1981.
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 William Lyon Homes (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Colin T. Severn, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/    COLIN T. SEVERN                 
|Colin T. Severn                        
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|March 29, 2010                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to William Lyon Homes and will be retained by William Lyon Homes and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2011159EN.01000801.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/8

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 159/03

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.4.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 306/09 |
| Member State | Greece |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Αποζημίωση — Δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες- τομέας υδατοκαλλιεργειών |
| Legal basis | Κοινή Υπουργική Απόφαση του Υπουργείου Οικονομίας και Οικονομικών και του Υπουργείου Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων |
| Type of measure | — |
| Objective | Compensation of damage caused by an adverse climatic event in 2008 to the aquaculture sector in a Greek province |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | EUR 2 000 000 |
| Intensity | Maximum of 70 % of value of production lost or of the cost of restoring the damage |
| Duration (period) | Two years |
| Economic sectors | Aquaculture sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων |
| Αχαρνών 2 |
| 101 76 Αθήνα/Athens |
| ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.4.2011

Reference number of State Aid

N 306/09

Member State

Greece

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Αποζημίωση — Δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες- τομέας υδατοκαλλιεργειών

Legal basis

Κοινή Υπουργική Απόφαση του Υπουργείου Οικονομίας και Οικονομικών και του Υπουργείου Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων

Type of measure

—

Objective

Compensation of damage caused by an adverse climatic event in 2008 to the aquaculture sector in a Greek province

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

EUR 2 000 000

Intensity

Maximum of 70 % of value of production lost or of the cost of restoring the damage

Duration (period)

Two years

Economic sectors

Aquaculture sector

Name and address of the granting authority

Υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων

Αχαρνών 2

101 76 Αθήνα/Athens

ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE

Other information

Annual report

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF WILLIAM LYON HOMES, A DELAWARE CORPORATION**

William Lyon Homes 

(formerly The Presley Companies) (a Delawarecorporation) 

William Lyon Homes, Inc. 

(a California corporation) 

California Equity Funding, Inc.

(a California corporation) 

Sycamore CC, Inc. 

(a California corporation) 

Presley CMR, Inc. 

(a California corporation) 

Duxford Financial, Inc. (formerly Presley MortgageCompany) 

(a California corporation) 

Bayport Mortgage, L.P. 

(a Californialimited partnership) 

Duxford Title Reinsurance Company 

(a Vermont corporation) 

PH—LP Ventures 

(a California corporation) 

PH-Rielly Ventures, Inc. 

(a California corporation) 

Silver Creek Preserve 

(a California corporation) 

HSP, Inc. 

(a California corporation) 

PH Ventures-San Jose 

(a California corporation) 

Cerro Plata Associates, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Henry Ranch, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company)

William Lyon Southwest, Inc. 

(an Arizona corporation) 

PLC/Lyon Waterfront Residential, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Lyon Waterfront, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company)

Tustin Villas Partners, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Tustin Vistas Partners, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liabilitycompany) 

Marble Mountain Partners, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

East GarrisonPartners I, LLC 

(a California limited liability company) 

Lyon East Garrison Company I, LLC 

(a California limited liability company) 

Spectrum 90 Investors, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

4S Ranch Planning Area 38, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liabilitycompany) 

San Miguel Village, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Lyon Treviso, LLC

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

WLH Enterprises (formerly The Ranch Golf Club Co. which was formerly Carmel Mountain Ranch) 

(a California general partnership) 

Laguna Big Horn, LLC

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Mountain Falls, LLC 

(a Nevada limitedliability company) 

Mountain Falls Golf Course, LLC 

(a Nevada limited liability company) 

Whitney Ranch Village5, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Queen Creek Joint Venture, LLC 

(an Arizonalimited liability company) 

Lyon Vista Del Mar 533, LLC 

(a Delaware limited liability company) 

Circle G at the Church Farm North Joint Venture, LLC 

(an Arizonalimited liability company) 

WLH/WB Rainbow Valley Properties JV, LLC 

(an Arizona limited liability company) 

Duxford Insurance, LLC 

(a California limited liability company)

Moffet Meadows Partners, LLC 

(a Delaware Limited Liability Company) 

Duxford Escrow, Inc. 

(a California Corporation) 

Nobar Water Company 

(a California Company) 

Tustin Coventry, LLC 

(a Delaware Limited Liability Company) 

William Lyon Mortgage Series of CWB

Mortgage Ventures, LLC 

(a California Limited Liability Company)
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1761 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to modernize certain forms and surveys 

of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2019 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. LEAHY, and 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to modernize certain 

forms and surveys of the Department of Defense, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODERNIZATION OF CERTAIN FORMS AND 

4 SURVEYS. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct 

6 a study to identify each form and survey of the Depart7 ment of Defense, in use on the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act, that contains a term or classification that the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1761 IS

1 Secretary determines may be considered racially or eth2 nically insensitive. 

3 (b) REPORTS.— 

4 (1) INTERIM REPORTS.—On the date that is 90 

5 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 

6 on the date that is 180 days after such date of en7 actment, the Secretary shall submit to the Commit8 tees on Armed Services of the House of Representa9 tives and the Senate a report on the status of the 

10 study conducted under subsection (a). 

11 (2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than one year 

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec13 retary shall submit to the Committees on Armed 

14 Services of the House of Representatives and the 

15 Senate a report on the results of the study con16 ducted under subsection (a) that includes— 

17 (A) a list of each form and survey identi18 fied under such study; and 

19 (B) a plan for modernizing the terms and 

20 classifications contained in such forms and sur21 veys, including legislative recommendations. 

22 (c) MODERNIZATION REQUIRED.—Not later than 18 

23 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1761 IS

1 Secretary shall carry out the plan included in the report 

2 submitted under subsection (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-32,505-04

EX PARTE STEPHEN E. DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 23,477-A IN THE 411TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM POLK COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years. 

Applicant claims, inter alia, that trial counsel should have challenged the punishment

enhancement and should have raised insanity, and he claims counsel mis-admonished him that the

punishment range was up to 99 years and that he would be placed on probation. On June 23, 2015,

an order designating issues was signed by the trial judge. It indicated that the trial court would

resolve the controverted factual issues and would enter findings. No findings have been included in
the habeas record. We remand this application to the 411th District Court of Polk County to allow

the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: September 16, 2015

Do not publish
Case 7:07-cv-03335-CLB Document 7 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03335-CLB Document 7 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cr6/MCR

JAMES D. RAMSEY

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2), the plea of

guilty of the defendant, JAMES D. RAMSEY, to the two count indictment against him

is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as

directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### SAWYER v. SAWYER

No. 38 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 154.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
Exhibit 23.2







Consent of Robnett & Co., LP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors

Saratoga Resources, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-131624 and No. 333-146985) on Form S-8 of Saratoga Resources, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2007, except for the removal of Note 5 and the going concern provision in the auditors report, the date as to which is January 3, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Saratoga Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006, and all related financial statement schedules as of December 31, 2006 and for the two-year period ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Resources, Inc.



/s/ Robnett & Co., LP



Robnett & Co., LP



Austin, Texas

May 13, 2008
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Dean Weber, CEO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of One Voice Technologies,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report (the
         "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

March 30, 2004

/s/ Dean Weber
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.6


 


Employment Agreement Addendum I


Addendum to agreement dated September 10,
2018


 


This first addendum
to the employment agreement (the “Addendum”) is made this 10th day of March 2020, by and between OptimizeRx,
Corporation (the “Company”), a Nevada Company, and Miriam Paramore (the “Executive”).


 


Base Salary:
The Executive will receive a base salary at the annualized rate of $275,000.00 (“Base Salary”), which will
be paid in accordance with normal Company payroll practices and subject to the usual and applicable required withholding(s). 


 


Effective
Date: January 1, 2020 


 


Acknowledgment:


 


Except as expressly
set forth herein, all other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


	OptimizeRx, Corporation	 	Miriam Paramore
	 	 	 
	By:	William Febbo	 	By:	Miriam Paramore
	Its:	Chief Executive Officer	 	Date: 	March 10, 2020
	Date: 	March 10, 2020
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.5 (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 3) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2004 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements Annual Servicer Certificate (Exhibit 99.4) that
Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays PLC,
has fulfilled its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in respect of the
minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables arising on
designated accounts as set forth in the clauses of the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23
November 1999 (BSA) specified in paragraph 3 below during the year ended 31
December 2003 . Management is responsible for the Servicers compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Servicers
fulfilment of obligations under the BSA based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
managements assertion about the companys compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. We examined the Servicers compliance with the BSA clauses 2.1 d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f,
2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a and 2.5.b, using definitions set forth in the Master
Definitions schedule between Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited, Barclays
Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 8 April 2003.




---



##### 



Our examination of the cash management report for September 2003, identified an
error in the cash transfer calculation, which resulted in an incorrect payment
of £8,667,005 being made by the Servicer to Gracechurch Receivables Trustee
Limited, which is an exception in relation to clause 2.5b. In our opinion, except for the deviation stated in the previous paragraph,
managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2004 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing