alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2123

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Cecilio Felipe-Ramirez, also known *

as Mariel Perez-Valentin, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 16, 2011

Filed: September 21, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cecilio Felipe-Ramirez appeals from the sentence imposed by the District

Court after he pleaded guilty to four offenses related to the use and sale of false 1

identification documents. He entered his guilty plea under a written plea agreement

that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal

waiver but nevertheless challenging the reasonableness of Felipe-Ramirez’s sentence.

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

1

Northern District of Iowa.
We conclude that this appeal is barred by the appeal waiver. The appeal falls

within the scope ofthe waiver, the record establishes that Felipe-Ramirez entered into

the plea agreement and agreed to the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and

enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (describing the

circumstances under which the appellate court should enforce an appeal waiver and

dismiss the appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). Although the plea agreement

set forth limited exceptions to the appeal waiver, we conclude that none of those

exceptions apply here. Finally, we have reviewed the record independently under

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues

beyond the scope of the appeal waiver. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
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 Abazias, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jesus Diaz, acting
      in
      the capacity as the Chief Financial 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.








/s/
      Jesus Diaz




Jesus
      Diaz


CEO
      and
      CFO








April
      16,
      2007
#### STATE v. CRAWFORD

No. 479P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 160.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 September 1982. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of significant public interest allowed 21 September 1982.
The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-1931

___________

Patrick Ronald Russell, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Roger Pehrson, et al., *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 23, 1996

 Filed: August 30, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Ronald Russell appeals the district court's order dismissing 1

without prejudice his § 1983 action claiming numerous Nebraska State

Penitentiary officials violated his rights in connection with prison

disciplinary proceedings. After careful review of the parties' briefs and

the record, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IAAI Position Statement Supporting the National Firefighter Registry

As it becomes more well-known that fire service members are exposed to chemicals and particulates on the fireground 

that could increase their risk of developing cancer, there are many unanswered questions about how cancer risk may 

vary across our nation’s diverse fire service. To help address this important issue, in 2018, Congress passed the 

Firefighter Cancer Registry Act, which directed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a 

branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to develop a registry to study cancer in the fire service, 

including fire investigators. After several years of development, NIOSH is set to launch the National Firefighter Registry

in January 2023 to align with Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month. Their goal is to enroll at least 200,000 fire service 

members and link them (and their work history details) to any individual cancer diagnoses reported to states.

Participation in the registry is voluntary. You can learn more about this effort and get additional information about the 

registry at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/firefighters/registry/aboutnfr.html

Including fire investigators in this registry is significant because we are typically at more fire scenes than firefighters, 

work in the post-fire scene for a longer period, and are sometimes less well-protected by PPE. The information gathered 

regarding fire investigators will be of great significance because so little is currently known about the adverse health 

effects of working at post-fire scenes. 

The IAAI supports the mission of the National Firefighter Registry and encourages our members to register and 

participate in this important program. 

January 2023
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2022

NO. 03-21-00464-CR

Jose Antonio Nasipak, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 453RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgments. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      879
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (201)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,873
<PP&E>                                           6,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,207)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           413
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,027)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,318
<SALES>                                          1,990
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,133
<CGS>                                              936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (374)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (515)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES SPILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-37-SPM-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 23). Plaintiff has been mailed a copy and has been

afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the Report

and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 23) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this eleventh day of February, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv31-RH/WCS

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

STATE ATTORNEY, 

and PUBLIC DEFENDERS,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint on January 26, 2010, 

doc. 1, and a statement of facts, doc. 3. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this case

nor did she submit an in forma pauperis motion with the required supporting financial

affidavit. Plaintiff has frequently sought to initiate cases in this Court, and she has

previously been advised that a civil action "shall not be filed by the clerk until the fee is

paid as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, unless the complaint . . . is accompanied by a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(H). Because

Plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed an in forma pauperis motion, this case must be

dismissed. 
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:10cv31-RH/WCS

Moreover, even if Plaintiff were to submit an in forma pauperis motion, the

recommendation for dismissal would not be changed. Federal Courts have authority to

dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis, if it is satisfied that the action is frivolous or

malicious. The Supreme Court has recognized two types of cases which may be

dismissed, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). The first class are "claim(s)

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," and the second class contain "claims

whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Id. This case lacks both an arguable

basis in law and is clearly removed from reality. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277

(11th Cir. 1990), citing Neitzke. Dismissal of the complaint is appropriate.

Therefore, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because Plaintiff has failed

to pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis motion.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 9, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.
Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 27 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 1 of 4Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 27 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 2 of 4Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 27 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 3 of 4Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 27 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
IN THE SUPREME CO UR T OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEVIN WILLIAMS

, §

§ No. 390 , 2018

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below : S uperior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1 204002559 ( N )

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 6 , 2019

Decided: February 11 , 2019

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

This 11 th day of February, 2019, after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its

June 29, 2018 Memorandum Opinion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
#### STATE v. SOUTHERN

No. 181 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 711.

Petition by defendant, Joe Sumpter, Jr., for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1981.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         November 6, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Paul A. Amstad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, DHHS/National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-402-7098,                         *pamstad@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: October 3, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4990 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Richard Francis Sommers, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K
containing distribution or servicing
reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this
annual report, of Gracechurch
Receivables Trustee Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information
in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as
of the last day of the period covered
by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution
or servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in
these reports is included in these
reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the
activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance
review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant
deficiencies relating to the servicers
compliance with the minimum servicing
standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public
accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set
forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement. By: /s/ Richard Francis SommersName: Richard Francis SommersTitle: DirectorDate: June 21, 2004
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

*CertificationPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002*

 

I, Adrian Walton Gower certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F ofONO Finance PLC (the “Company”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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 Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Adrian Walton Gower   |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                      |
|   |   | Name: Adrian Walton Gower |
|   |   | Title: *Director*         |
|   |   | Date: June 30, 2005  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

SourceForge, Inc.Mountain View, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92409;
333-92391; 333-38768; 333-38766; 333-38874; 333-59096; 333-71944; 333-101965;
and 333-116778) of SourceForge, Inc. of our report dated October 31, 2005,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule, before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively account for
the software business as a discontinued operation as described in Notes 1 and 11
(the 2005 financial statements before the effects of the adjustments described
in Notes 1 and 11 are not presented separately herein), which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP       | 
|-------------------------- | 
|                           | 
|San Jose,
      California | 
|October 8,
      2007      | 

---
#### STATE v. ANDREWS

No. 157P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 91.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 May 1982.