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

| x | Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: For the quarterly period ended January 31, 2014 |
|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| o | Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: For the transition period from _______ to _________ |
|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| NEVADA                                                         |   | 30-0420930                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |   | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
| Large accelerated filer     o                     |   | Accelerated filer                       o |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                                                                                                  |
| Non-accelerated filer       o |   | Smaller reporting company     x                                              |
| (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)                    |

----

----

----

| Part II. Other Information |
|----------------------------|
|                       |   |   |
| Item 1.                    | Legal Proceedings | 4 |

----

Table of Contents

| Item 1. | Legal Proceedings |
|---------|-------------------|

----

| HYDROCARB ENERGY CORP.   |        |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Kent P. Watts             |   |
| Kent P. Watts                 |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Date: March 4, 2015 |   |

----

Table of Contents

| ExhibitNumber |   | Description of Exhibit                                                                                           |
|---------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 31.1*         |   | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) |
| 31.2*         |   | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) |

| * | Filed herewith. |
|---|-----------------|

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1804

KASSAHUN WAGAW WORKNEH,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S.

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-252-385)

Submitted: May 9, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.

McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Senior Litigation Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kassahun Wagaw Workneh, native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

without opinion the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying

Workneh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. We

have reviewed the administrative record and the IJ’s decision. We

find that the IJ’s ruling that Workneh failed to establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as

necessary to qualify for asylum relief, is not manifestly contrary

to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D);

see 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b) (2003) (eligibility for asylum).

The standard for receiving withholding of removal is “more

stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d

198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must

demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). As Workneh has failed to

establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher

standard for withholding of removal.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1



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 Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2020, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas M. Polinsky, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Joseph A. Geraci, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Act of 1934; and



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



| | /s/ Douglas M. Polinsky 
| | ------------------------
| | Douglas M. Polinsky     
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| |                         
| | October 30, 2020        
| |                         
| |                         
| | /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II
| | Joseph A. Geraci, II    
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| |                         
| | October 30, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                           7,800
<SECURITIES>                                    42,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,600
<PP&E>                                         144,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 460,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,500
<BONDS>                                         64,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     209,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   460,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (700)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:01-cr-00046-MP

CHARLES BRENNEN,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 36, a letter from Mr. Brennan in which he states

that he fears for his safety, has been assaulted various times, and requests the undersigned to "get

me moved to a medium institution or a fallout yard like Coleman 2." The Clerk is directed to

send a copy of the letter to Assistant United States Attorney Meltzer, Attorney Jon Uman, the

United States Marshal's Service, and the Bureau of Prisons, and to record such service in an

entry on the docket sheet.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

CentraSoftware, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (No. 333-107809, No. 333-97333, No. 333-60718 and No. 333-40268) on Form S-8 of Centra Software, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Centra Software, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31,2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Centra Software, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 1, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                       
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | March 17, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                                 
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels Chief Financial Officer Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20-3 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
### NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 315

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

GEORGE TRAVIS CERVENKA JR.

, Appellant

,

v.

KAREN MARIE CERVENKA

, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 2 5 th District Court

of Lavaca County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

This matter is before the Court on appellan t ’ s motion to dismiss. Appellant filed a

notice of restricted appeal in error and requests that the case be dismissed.

The Court, having considered the motion, is of the opinion that the motion should

be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted,

and the appeal is hereby dismissed.2 Costs will be taxed against the appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ( “ Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant. ” ). B ecause the

appeal is dismissed at appellan t ’ s request, no motion for rehearing shall be entertained

.

LETICIA HIN OJOSA

Justice

D elivered an d filed on the

28th day of July, 2022.
#### FREEMAN v. HAMILTON

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 142.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 May 1972.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2325

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Adam Bates, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 15, 2005 Filed: February 21, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Adam Bates appeals the 10-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Bates’s counsel has moved to withdr aw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel raises as a potential issue whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant Bates’s request for a senten ce below the Guidelines range and thereby imposed an unreasonable sentence. Bates was granted leave to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so . The government has moved to dismiss for-2- lack of jurisdiction arguing that this court cannot review for reasonableness sentences imposed within the advisory Guidelines.

After United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we review for unreasonableness a sentence that is within the advisory Guidelines range; therefore, we reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See United States v. Mickelson, 433 F. 3d 1050, 1052-55 (8th Cir. 2005) ;United States v. McCully , 407 F.3d 931, 934 n.2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 305 (2005); United States v. Frokjer , 415 F.3d 865, 875 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005). As to counsel’s arguments we conclude th at the denial of Bates’s request for a sentence below the Guidelines range is unreviewable to th e extent that it challenges the district court's discretionary decisi on not to depart downw ard under the advisory guidelines. See Frokjer, 415 F. 3d at 875

. To the extent that the denial of Bates's request for a sentence below the guidelin es range is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), then it is reviewable. See Michelson, 433 F. 3d at 1054.

Because the district court sentenced Bat es within the applicable Guidelines range and considered the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 765-66 (appellate courts should review post- Booker sentences for reasonableness, using factors in § 3553(a) to guide their determination); United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within Guidelines range “is presumptively reasonable”). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the government’s motion to dismiss, and affirm.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:09cr82 LAC

MICHAEL PHILLIP KESSLER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on November 25, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO SUPPRESS SEARCH 

Filed by DEFT on 11/25/09 Doc.# 50

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on11/27/09 Doc.# 52

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 4 day of

th

December, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See record of proceedings.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No.
# C_2010009EN.01000102.xml

| 15.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5705 — Marfrig Alimentos/SEARA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 9/02

On 18 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5705. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5705. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARVIN D. LANCASTER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 3:09cv333/MCR/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated October 20, 2011 (doc. 30). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.

In his objection to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 32), the Petitioner argues that, contrary

1

to the magistrate judge’s finding, he is able to rebut the state court’s conclusion that he began serving the 50-

year sentence imposed in Case No. 80-480 in December 2000. To that end, the Petitioner attaches a number

of documents that he contends clearly state that he began serving his sentence in Case No. 80-480 in October

1980. The court has reviewed the documents attached by the Petitioner, and the only reference to the date

on which the Petitioner began serving the sentence imposed in Case No. 80-480 indicates that he began

serving the sentence in December 2000.

Case 3:09-cv-00333-MCR-EMT Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:09cv4333MCR/EMT

Case 3:09-cv-00333-MCR-EMT Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

NYKA O’CONNOR,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv360/LAC/EMT

KELLEY, et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 31, 2014 (doc. 157). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have 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, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Grice’s motion to set aside default (doc. 142) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Grice (doc. 153) is DENIED as moot. 

4. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Temples and FDOC (doc. 129) is

GRANTED and the federal claims against these Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. 

5. All federal claims against Defendants Kelley, Nelson, Morris, Hammontree; Orsa;

Turner; Ealum; Mitchell; Collier; Grice; Bishop, and SRCI, are also dismissed with prejudice.

6. Plaintiff’s state law claims against all Defendants are dismissed without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s pursuing them in state court.

Case 3:10-cv-00360-LC-EMT Document 166 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

7. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

8. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff

and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21 day of March, 2014. st

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cv360/LAC/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00360-LC-EMT Document 166 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 07, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 07, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0356. IN THE INTEREST OF: T. W., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

13JV1257 13JV1253