alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-142882) and the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K of our report dated November 23, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Simulations Plus, Inc. as of and for the years ended August 31, 2011 and 2010, which report appears in the August 31, 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simulations Plus, Inc.








/s/ Rose, Snyder & Jacobs


Rose, Snyder & Jacobs


A Corporation of Certified Public Accountants





Encino, California





November 28, 2011
Moody National REIT I, Inc. 10-Q





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




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Moody National REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies, to his knowledge, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 16, 2011










/s/ Brett C. MoodyBrett C. MoodyChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TAMMY WHITE : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM :

CORPORATION :

d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE : NO. 10-2141

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2010, upon

consideration of the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket No.

10); the defendant’s opposition, the plaintiff’s reply, and the

defendant’s sur-reply thereto; the plaintiff’s supplemental

authority to its motion and the defendant’s response thereto; and

the defendant’s supplemental authority in opposition to the

plaintiff’s motion; and for the reasons set forth in a Memorandum

of today’s date; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion

to remand is DENIED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a

response to the defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue (Docket

No. 4) on or before August 19, 2010. The defendant shall then

have one week to file a brief in reply. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.
# C_2010156EN.01000301.xml

| 16.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 June 2010

2010/C 156/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2258 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4377 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6215 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3998 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8515 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,663 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,10 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7076 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0734 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2358 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9316 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4301 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2629 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5500 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7668 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7110 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 505,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4245 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3760 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2130 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 263,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0036 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,053 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,4800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,708 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2132 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,5142 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 57,0310 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2258

JPY

Japanese yen

111,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4377

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83200

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6215

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3998

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8515

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,663

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,10

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7076

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0734

RON

Romanian leu

4,2358

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9316

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4301

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2629

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5500

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7668

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7110

KRW

South Korean won

1 505,77

ZAR

South African rand

9,4245

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3760

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2130

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 263,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0036

PHP

Philippine peso

57,053

RUB

Russian rouble

38,4800

THB

Thai baht

39,708

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2132

MXN

Mexican peso

15,5142

INR

Indian rupee

57,0310

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MWASI SONGAMBELE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv241-RH

GODFREY O. ONUGHA, et al., 

Defendant.

 /

DEFENDANT TAYLOR’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM MEDIATION

COMES NOW Defendant W.T. Taylor, through the below named attorney, and 

requests to be relieved from the mediation requirement provided in the Court’s 

Scheduling and Mediation Order (doc. 12). The order requires mediation to begin

by December 3, 2010, and conclude by December 17, 2010. Further, Defendant 

represents:

Plaintiff was placed in the special housing unit (SHU) at FCI Tallahassee on or

about January 20, 2010. Defendant Taylor arrived as Warden on or about February 28,

2010. Plaintiff remained in the SHU for her safety due to her allegations of sexual

abuse by a staff member. Plaintiff remained in the SHU while an investigation was

conducted. There is no limit to the amount of time that an inmate can remain in

administrative detention while there is a pending investigation. 

Plaintiff was transferred to the Wakulla County jail on April 14, 2010, and

returned to FCI Tallahassee on or about May 25, 2010. Because of ongoing safety 

Case 4:10-cv-00241-RH -WCS Document 33 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 2
concerns, she was transferred to FDC Miami on or about May 26, 2010, which is the

only other secure female facility in Florida.

Defendant suggests that the conditions and locations of Plaintiff’s housing are

decisions within the administrative discretion of the Bureau of Prisons, acting through its

employees. As such, Defendant should not be held personally responsible for any

alleged injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff. Under that belief, it is highly unlikely

that Defendant will offer any monetary amount in order to settle this case. Accordingly,

Defendant requests to be relieved from the requirement of mediation and the expenses

that it will require.

Certificate of Conference

On November 29, 2010, Defendant’s counsel conferred with Dana Brooks,

counsel for Plaintiff, who advised that she had no objection to this request 

Certificate of Service

On November 29, 2010, a copy of this motion will be sent via CM-ECF to Dana

Brooks, counsel for Plaintiff and Kathy Maus, counsel for Defendant Onugha.

Respectfully Submitted,

PAMELA C. MARSH

United States Attorney

s/ Paul Alan Sprowls

Assistant United States Attorney

Florida Bar 232688

United States Courthouse

111 North Adams Street, 4th Floor

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(850) 942-8430

Case 4:10-cv-00241-RH -WCS Document 33 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-55504]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121


Disqualification for Airman and Airman Medical Certificate 
Holders Based on Alcohol Violations or Refusals To Submit to Drug and 
Alcohol Testing

CFR Correction

    In Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 60 to 139, 
revised as of January 1, 2007, in Appendix I to Part 121, on page 938, 
section VI is corrected by removing and reserving paragraph D.2.

[FR Doc. 07-55504 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3372

_____________________________
P HILLIP G EORGE , III
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. June 28, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Phillip George, III, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 2 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 3 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 4 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 5 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 6 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 7 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 8 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 9 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 10 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 11 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 12 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 13 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 14 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 15 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 16 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 17 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 18 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 19 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 20 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 21 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 22 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 23 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 24 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 25 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 26 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 27 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 28 of 29Case 1:10-cv-00090-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/18/10 Page 29 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CANTON OMAR DISMUKES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv295/MCR/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

On August 26, 2010, this court entered an order (doc. 3) requiring petitioner to

submit, within twenty-eight days, a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis along

with supporting documentation, or payment in the amount of $5.00. Petitioner did not

comply with that portion of the order.1

Accordingly, on October 21, 2010, the court entered an order (doc. 5) directing

petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

an order of the court. Petitioner has responded (doc. 8), stating that he sent the $5.00 to

the Clerk of Court of the Escambia County Circuit Court, instead of to this court. 

Accordingly it is ORDERED: 

Petitioner is granted an extension until November 19, 2010 in which to comply with

this court’s August 26, 2010 order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action

without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2010.

/s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner complied with that portion of the order requiring him to submit two service copies of his

1

petition.
#### STATE v. BOOKER

No. 75.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 492.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss defendant’s notice of appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 February 1980.
# C_2009249EN.01001801.xml

| 17.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/18

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2009/C 249/08

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 04/92, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Polyester staple fibres | Republic of Korea | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 (OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 17) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 412/2009 (OJ L 125, 21.5.2009, p. 1) | 18.3.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Polyester staple fibres

Republic of Korea

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 (OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 17) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 412/2009 (OJ L 125, 21.5.2009, p. 1)

18.3.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---
# C_2010010EN.01000201.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 January 2010

2010/C 10/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4374 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4420 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88105 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1430 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4756 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1430 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,947 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 266,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0399 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1043 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5547 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4752 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,1536 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9497 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9984 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 614,29 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,6588 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8130 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2890 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 245,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8002 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,867 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,5015 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,244 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5438 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,2790 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,7000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4374

JPY

Japanese yen

130,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4420

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88105

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1430

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4756

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1430

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,947

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

266,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0399

RON

Romanian leu

4,1043

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5547

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4752

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,1536

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9497

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9984

KRW

South Korean won

1 614,29

ZAR

South African rand

10,6588

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8130

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2890

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 245,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8002

PHP

Philippine peso

65,867

RUB

Russian rouble

42,5015

THB

Thai baht

47,244

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5438

MXN

Mexican peso

18,2790

INR

Indian rupee

65,7000

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRED C. PROCTOR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv149/RS-MD 

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; COUNTRYWIDE HOME

LOANS, INC., a New York corporation;

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a

Texas Limited Partnership; LARRY WRIGHT,

Individually; WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES OF

NORTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., a Florida

corporation; CHRISTOPHER LEE PEAVY,

Individually; JAMES A. PEAVY, JR., 

Individually; ANDREW PICKEL, Individually;

and PEAVY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a

New York corporation,

Counter-Plaintiff,

vs.

FRED C. PROCTOR, JR.,

Counter-Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To Extend Discovery Deadline 

(Doc. 58).
IT IS ORDERED that the discovery deadline is extended to November 19, 2010.

ORDERED on October 20, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv129-RH/EMT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

EDWARD W. GRANBERRY, JR.,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv129-RH/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 53, and 

the objections, ECF No. 55. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the 

objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the 

court’s opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

Case 5:10-cv-00129-RH-EMT Document 56 Filed 07/14/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv129-RH/EMT

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that 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.’ ” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

Case 5:10-cv-00129-RH-EMT Document 56 Filed 07/14/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv129-RH/EMT

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

5. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 14, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00129-RH-EMT Document 56 Filed 07/14/12 Page 3 of 3
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 the Quarterly Report of BSV VIII, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer, certify
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 and
belief:





1.    The
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      September 25, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Douglas
      A. DyerDouglas
      A. Dyer
                  President
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  (Principal
      Financial /Accounting
Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6352

ROCKY LEE STALEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOYCE K. CONLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-00-828-1)

Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rocky Lee Staley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Rocky Lee Staley seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Staley v. Conley, No.

CA-00-828-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Jan. 25, 2001; entered Jan. 26, 2001).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED