alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
Exhibit 21


List of Subsidiaries


Trinsic Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Z-Tel Network Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Z-Tel Business Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Z-Tel, Inc., a Nevada corporation
Z-Tel Holdings, Inc., a Florida corporation
Trinsic Communications of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation
Touch 1 Communications, Inc., an Alabama corporation
Z-Tel Investments, Inc., a Delaware corporation
DirecTEL, Inc., an Alabama corporation
DirectCONNECT, Inc., an Alabama corporation
Z-Tel Consumer Services, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF KNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Knology, Inc. (the Company) that, to his knowledge, this annual report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
March 15, 2007



/s/ Rodger L. JohnsonRodger L. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7206

LORENZ A GERALD FEREBEE ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KAREN STAPLETON, Virginia Department of Corrections Offender Disciplinary Manager; JEFF KISER, Warden Red Onion State Prison; AMEE DUNCAN, Building Unit Manager Red Onion State Prison; LARRY A. MULLINS, Institutional Hearing Officer Red Onion State Prison; J.G. LYALL, Lieutenant Red Onion State Prison; E.A. MILLER, Lieutenant Red Onion State Prison; S.M. SIFFO RD, Food Service Clerical Red Onion State Prison ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Pamela Meade Sargen t , Magistrate Judge. ( 7:19

- cv

- 00254

- PMS )

Submitted : February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge ’s order denying relief on
Ferebee’s postjudgment motions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

. * We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm

. Ferebee v. Stapleton , No.

7:19

- cv

- 00254

- PMS (W.D. Va. July 27, 2020)

. Ferebee’s emergency motion for

retaliation is denied. 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

* The parties consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. DANIEL WAYNE CHRISTMAS

No. 136A81

(Filed 4 May 1982)

ON discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 to review an opinion of the Court of Appeals, 52 N.C. App. 186, 278 S.E. 2d 535 (1981) *(Martin, Robert M., J.,*with *Clark*and *Martin, Harry C., JJ.,*concurring).

*Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Henry T. Rosser, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*J. Samuel Williams for defendant-appellant.*

*655PER CURIAM.

Defendants Daniel Wayne Christmas, Charles Edsol Thomas, Jr., and Mark Ashley King were convicted of first-degree burglary. We allowed defendant Christmas’s petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of reviewing the question of “whether the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s Motion for Discovery of the statement of Ned Diggs, Jr., who was originally a co-defendant.”

G.S. 15A-903(b) provides:

> Upon motion of a defendant, the court must order the prosecutor:

> (1) To permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any written or recorded statements *of a codefendant*which the State intends to offer in evidence at their joint trial; and

> (2) To divulge, in written or recorded form, the substance of any oral statement made *by a codefend-ant*which the State intends to offer in evidence at their joint trial. (Emphasis added.)

On 14 March 1980 defendant’s counsel forwarded a letter to the Assistant District Attorney pursuant to G.S. 15A-902 requesting divulgence of the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant or any codefendant which the State intended to use or offer in evidence at trial.

An Assistant District Attorney filed a response on 25 March 1980 which stated “there are no statements of codefendants which the State intends to introduce in the joint trial.” On the same date the charges against Diggs were dismissed.

Defendant Christmas formally moved for discovery on 3 April 1980 pursuant to G.S. 15A-903, specifically requesting the substance of any oral statement made by a codefendant which the State intended to use or offer at trial.

The Court of Appeals found no error in this assignment of error reasoning that Diggs was not a codefendant on 3 April 1980, the date on which the formal motion for discovery was filed, and that the State is not required to produce statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses who are not codefendants.

*656After a careful examination of the record and after considering the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that defendant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed. Therefore, the order allowing discretionary review is hereby vacated.

Discretionary review improvidently allowed.
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 Quarterly Report of Enox Biopharma,  Inc. (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"),  the
undersigned,  as the Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  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 the best of my 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.


Date: November 15, 2010                    By: /s/ Itamar David
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Itamar David
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)
# CA2009116EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 116/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 116/s3

---

REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 9 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | (IT) |
| 12 | (DE/FR) |
| 13 | |
| 14 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 16 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 17 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 20 | |
| 21 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 23 | |
| 24 | (DE/FR/NL) |
| 25 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 28 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 34 | (FR) |
| 36 | (GA/EN) |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | (SV) |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | (EN) |
| 45 | |
| 46 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 47 | |
| 52 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 58 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 59 | (DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV) |
| 62 | (BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 63 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 75 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 80 | (FR) |
| 84 | (BG/RO) |
| 86 | |
| 91 | |
| 93 | (BG/RO) |
| 94 | |
| 95 | |
| 97 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 98 | |
| 99 | (GA/EN) |
| 103 | |
| 104 | (CS/PL) |
| 105 | |
| 106 | |
| 107 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 109 | (ET) |
| 114 | |
| 115 | (PL) |
| 116 | |

9

(DE/EN/FR)

10

(IT)

12

(DE/FR)

13

14

(DE/EN/FR)

16

(DE/EN/FR)

17

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

20

21

(DE/EN/FR)

23

24

(DE/FR/NL)

25

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

28

(DE/EN/FR)

34

(FR)

36

(GA/EN)

37

38

39

(SV)

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

(EN)

45

46

(DE/EN/FR)

47

52

(DA/FI/MT)

58

(DE/EN/FR)

59

(DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV)

62

(BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK)

63

70

71

75

(DE/EN/FR)

80

(FR)

84

(BG/RO)

86

91

93

(BG/RO)

94

95

97

(DE/EN/FR)

98

99

(GA/EN)

103

104

(CS/PL)

105

106

107

(DE/EN/FR)

109

(ET)

114

115

(PL)

116

---
# C_2009020EN.01001301.xml

| 27.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 January 2009

(2009/C 20/12)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,299 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,82 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4535 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,9395 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5031 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8935 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,712 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 285,41 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,704 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,343 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2517 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1331 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9773 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5864 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0785 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,4621 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9472 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 825,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1069 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8826 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4157 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 717,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7095 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,51 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,8528 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,329 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,005 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1211 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,092 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,299

JPY

Japanese yen

115,82

DKK

Danish krone

7,4535

GBP

Pound sterling

0,9395

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5031

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8935

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,712

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

285,41

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,704

PLN

Polish zloty

4,343

RON

Romanian leu

4,2517

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1331

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9773

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5864

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0785

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,4621

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9472

KRW

South Korean won

1 825,81

ZAR

South African rand

13,1069

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8826

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4157

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 717,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7095

PHP

Philippine peso

61,51

RUB

Russian rouble

42,8528

THB

Thai baht

45,329

BRL

Brazilian real

3,005

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1211

INR

Indian rupee

63,092

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### STATE v. SNOWDEN

No. 186 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 511.

Petition by defendant Boggs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 July 1981.
Start: 10:30 AM

Stop: 10:50 AM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL MINUTES 

Case No: 1:10-cv-71; PARSONS, et al v. KOPPERS INC Date: 11/30/10

 

PROCEEDINGS; Motion hearing

PRESENT: Honorable Maurice M. Paul , Judge

 Blair Patton Christine Bordenave Patrick Montoya 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Plaintiff’s attorney

 Kanter/Hill/Austin 

 Defendant’s Attorney 

 

Oral Arguments:

[23] First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification

 

[50] MOTION to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint by BEAZER EAST 

 INC, KOPPERS INC.

- written order to follow

Initials of Deputy Clerk bkp

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 53 Filed 11/30/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMAITON EXTRACTED FROM
LESCARDEN INC'S NOVEMBER 30, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                          60,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     75,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,618
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,509
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,698
<SALES>                                          3,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,027
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (240,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (240,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (240,916)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009081EN.01002401.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/24

---

Call for proposals for actions in the field of energy under the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ Programme (Decision 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24.10.2006, OJ L 310/15 of 9.11.2006)

2009/C 81/09

The Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) is hereby launching a call for proposals for the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ 2009 work programme. The call is closing on 25 June 2009 for all types of actions.

Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to proposers on how to submit projects, is available on:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/call_for_proposals/index_en.htm

The helpdesk of the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ programme can be reached on:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/contact/index_en.htm

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RASHAD SHERIFE OLIPHANT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv135/RS-AK

DANNY SYLVESTER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Before me is the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 17, 2010 (Doc. 9). Plaintiff

did not provide information about his former cases in his Complaint nor did he file his Second

Amended Complaint on the proper forms. Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint, the

Court discovered that Plaintiff has been barred as a “three striker” in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida. (See Doc. 4 in Case No. 3:06cv253-HLA-HTS). As

such, he should not have been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and this case

should be dismissed. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which was enacted on April 26, 1996,

provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed in federal court on the

grounds that they failed to state a claim or were malicious: Case No. 1:96-cv-129 (W.D.N.C);

Case No. 1:97-cv-214 (W.D.N.C.); and Case No. 3:04-cv-1261-J-99TEM (M.D. Fla.). 

The instant complaint alleges that Plaintiff was forced to wait in line for canteen products

despite having a medical pass that prohibited him from standing over 10 minutes. These

allegations do not bring him within the "imminent danger" exception. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(Doc. 12) is hereby vacated.

2. The motion for leave (Doc. 4) is denied.

3. This case is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff making the same allegations in a

complaint for which he pays the full $350.00 filing fee at the time of filing the complaint.

ORDERED on August 16, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10-cv-00135-RS-AK
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 Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical
Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Van Vliet, Interim President and Interim Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 25, 2010 |  | /s/ David A. Van Vliet                                                                                
|                     |  | David A. Van Vliet Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as our exhibit to the Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A.
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 30    Filed 04/16/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 30    Filed 04/16/10   Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
13.1





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 Annual Report of CityView Corporation Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I,P M Smyth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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













P M
Smyth


June 27,
2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ANDREW CHRISTIAN OROZCO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10441
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 08061

- JJT

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Christian Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 97

- month sentence , to be followed by a lifetime term of supervision, imposed for assault by strang ulation or suffocation, in
violation of 18 U. S.C. §§ 113(a)(8) and 1153 , and sexual abuse of a minor , in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10441

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246

. P ursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Orozco ’ s counsel has filed a bri ef stating that there are no grounds for relief, along wi th a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. Orozco h as filed a p ro se supplemental opening brief . No answering brief
ha s been filed.
Orozco waived his r ight to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). Orozco’s pro se argument
that he sh ould have received a lower custodial sentence and term of supervised release is barred by the waiver. In any event, his sentence is consistent with the stipulations in the binding plea agreement. Furthermore, the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct b y discussing at sentencing the dismissed charges

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; United States v. Watts , 519 U.S. 148, 152

- 54 (1997) (per curiam). W e do not reach on direct appeal Orozco’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. S ee United States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257,
1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 2011). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See Watson , 582
F.3d at 988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED
.
Case 1:07-cv-03557-AKH Document 4 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03557-AKH Document 4 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03557-AKH Document 4 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03557-AKH Document 4 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 4 of 4