alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ADDIS T. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:11cv68-SPM/WCS

CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES T.

CANADY, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order. Doc. 4. Plaintiff is seeking to prevent the Florida Supreme

Court from proceeding with an indirect criminal contempt hearing scheduled to be

heard by a referee on Monday, February 21, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. For the following

reasons, the motion will be denied.

1. This case was filed on Friday, February 18, 2011, at 3:11 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time. The Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order was filed later that day at 4:31 p.m. Plaintiff did not provide the Court with

sufficient time to consider the matter, and it has become moot because the time

for the hearing has passed. See Nat’l Lawyers Guild Univ. of Tex. Chapter v. Bd.
Page 2 of 2

of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 490 F.2d 97 (suit to require meeting rendered

moot where time for meeting had long since passed).

2. Plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that

render the state court incapable of fairly and fully adjudicating the issues before it

so as to justify interference with the state court proceedings. Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971); Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124-25 (1975).

3. To the extent Plaintiff is asking this Court to review the Supreme

Court of Florida’s January 4, 2011, order denying his petition for writ of

prohibition and motion to disqualify the Florida Supreme Court (doc. 5-27), there

is no jurisdiction to do so. Doe v. Fla. Bar, 640 F.3d 1336, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011)

(under Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a United States District Court has no

jurisdiction to review a decision of the Florida Supreme Court).

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order, doc. 4, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:11cv68-SPM/WCS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5616 

To require the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities 

to submit to Congress a report on the impact of the opioid epidemic 

on minority communities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2018 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. RUSH, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the National Institute of Minority Health and 

Health Disparities to submit to Congress a report on 

the impact of the opioid epidemic on minority communities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Opioid Minority Health 

5 Report to Congress Act of 2018’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5616 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MINORITY HEALTH AND 

2 HEALTH DISPARITIES REPORT ON THE IM3 PACT OF THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC ON MINOR4 ITY COMMUNITIES. 

5 Not later than one year after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the National 

7 Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities shall 

8 submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 

9 the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and 

10 Commerce of the House of Representatives, and make 

11 public on the Internet website of Department of Health 

12 and Human Services, a report on the impact of the opioid 

13 epidemic on racial and ethnic minority groups (as defined 

14 in section 1707(g) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 300u–6(g))), including the following: 

16 (1) The scope of the epidemic within such racial 

17 and ethnic minority groups with respect to the use 

18 of prescription pain killers and illicit drug use, in19 cluding synthetics. 

20 (2) The extent to which, and funding rec21 ommendations for how, the expansion of coverage 

22 under the Medicare program under title XVIII of 

23 the Social Security Act and the Medicaid program 

24 under title XIX of such Act of medication-assisted 

25 treatment and other treatment options could deVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:16 Apr 27, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5616.IH H5616

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5616 IH

1 crease the incidence of opioids use and of deaths 

2 caused by opioids overdoses. 

3 (3) The role of participation of such racial and 

4 minority groups in clinical trials for pain manage5 ment therapy and alternatives to opioids pain man6 agement and recommendations on how to increase 

7 such participation of such groups in such clinical 

8 trials. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
undersigned, Paul Crawford, the Chief Executive Officer and Dennis Atkins, Chief
Financial Officer of Diamond Information Institute Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Diamond Information Institute Inc. for quarter ended March 31,
2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Diamond Information
Institute Inc.








Date: May
13, 2010





/s/  
      "Paul Crawford"Paul
      Crawford
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer





/s/  
      "Dennis Atkins"Dennis
      Atkins
              Chief
      Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer





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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5653 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that any alien 

who has been convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors, is deportable, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2018 

Mr. GOSAR (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BABIN, Mr. BLUM, Mr. BUDD, 

Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DUNCAN of South 

Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Mr. JOHNSON

of Ohio, Mr. JONES, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MARINO, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

PERRY, Mr. POSEY, Mr. YOHO, Mr. BUCK, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. BIGGS, 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. BARLETTA, and Mr. BRAT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

that any alien who has been convicted of a felony or 

two misdemeanors, is deportable, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Criminal Alien Re5 moval Clarification Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5653 IH

1 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL GROUNDS FOR DEPORTABILITY. 

2 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(2) CRIMINAL GROUNDS.—Any alien who, at 

5 any time after admission, has been convicted of a 

6 felony or two misdemeanors, whether under State or 

7 Federal law, is deportable.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### State Of West Virginia *v.*Rodney P. Duncan

(No. 15042)

Decided December 18, 1981.

*Randall L. Trautwein*for appellant.

*Chauncey H. Browning,*Attorney General, *Dennis M. Abrams,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Harshbarger, Chief Justice:

Rodney Duncan was indicted by a Cabell County grand jury for one count of armed robbery.1 On September 4, 1980, the trial court accepted Duncan’s informed plea to unarmed robbery. He was sentenced on September 12 to confinement in a state penitentiary for not less than five nor more than eighteen years. The trial judge stated at that time that W.Va. Code, 62-12-2(b)(1979), made Duncan ineligible for probation, but if he had been eligible, there would have been a different sentence.

Code 62-12-2, our probation eligibility statute, was amended in 1979 to include:

> (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, any person *706who commits or attempts to commit a felony with the use, presentment or brandishing of a firearm shall be ineligible for probation. Nothing in this section shall apply to an accessory before the fact or a principal in the second degree who has been convicted as if he were a principal in the first degree if, in the commission of or in the attempted commission of the felony, only the principal in the first degree used, presented or brandished a firearm.

We must decide whether a person indicted for armed robbery, but convicted of unarmed robbery, falls within the class of persons statutorily ineligible for probation. We get further assistance from the statute. Subsection (c) (1979)2 explains the applicability of 62-12-2(b):

> (c) The existence of any fact which would make any person ineligible for probation under subsection (b) of this section because of the commission or attempted commission of a felony with the use, presentment or brandishing of a firearm shall not be applicable unless such fact is (i) *found by the court upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere,*or (ii) found by the jury, if the matter be tried before a jury, or (iii) found by the court, if the matter be tried by the court, without a jury. (Emphasis added.)

The trial court twice advised defendant that he probably would not be eligible for probation if he plead guilty to unarmed robbery because of Code 62-12-2. After reviewing the record and relevant Code section, Judge Ferguson concluded: “In reviewing your file and reviewing the facts of this case it is obvious a weapon was, in fact, used during the commission of this robbery.” This finding of fact by the court made Duncan ineligible for probation.

*Affirmed.*

1

 For a detailed discussion of the new terminology for the classifications of robbery, *see State v.*Harless, _ W.Va. _, 285 S.E.2d 461 (1981).

2

 This section was amended in 1981, but those amendments are inapplicable to Duncan.
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 on Form 10-K of World Heart Corporation (the "Corporation") for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David Pellone, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Corporation, 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 his
knowledge:

Dated: March 30, 2009

/s/ *DAVID PELLONE David Pellone, Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---

This
certification accompanies the Form-10K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40686 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS PEREZ-TOSTADO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-894-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Perez-Tostado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Perez-Tostado contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He also contends that Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), applies in determining hisNo. 04-40686 -2- sentence. Perez-Tostado acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issues for possible Supreme Court review. Perez-Tostado’s arguments are not precluded by the terms of the appellate-waiver provision. Nevertheless, as Perez-Tostado concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00410-CV

IN RE GO INTERESTS, LLC;

GREGORY OBERT; GWENDOLYN 

M. OBERT; GO HELICOPTERS, 

INC.; HELITRANS COMPANY; 

HILLTOP COMMERCIAL 

HOLDINGS, INC.; AND GO 

COLORADO 2007 REVOCABLE 

TRUST

RELATORS

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let 

execution issue.

 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 16, 2010
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nasus Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell R. Desjourdy,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
August 14,
2008                                                                                     /s/ Russell R.
Desjourdy


Russell
R. Desjourdy


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Berge Abajian, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Bergio International, Inc.; 

 

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

 

 
|                |                        |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|
| Date: July 17, 2020 | By: */s/ Berge Abajian*     |
|                | Berge Abajian               |
|                | Principal Financial Officer |
|                | Bergio International, Inc.  |
**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 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of ecoSolutions Intl (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




(i)
        The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended; and




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





Date:
                November 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                William PatridgeWilliam
                Patridge
              Chief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Thomas Morrow, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Home School Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify that:  1.I have reviewed the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010;2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a.Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a.All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  HOME SCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC./s/ Thomas Morrow(Registrant)Thomas MorrowChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Authorized Officer) Dated: May 24, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS BODNAR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Sheriffs

Department; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

GEMENDE, Sergeant; et al.,

Defendants. No. 20

- 55496

D.C. No. 5:17

- cv

- 01463

- DSF

- PLA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021 * *

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges

.

Thomas Bodnar appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

* 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

MAR 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55496

post

- judgment motion to reopen the case to add a cause of action for breach of an

oral settl ement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for abuse of discretion

. Weeks v. Bayer , 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.

2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bodnar’s motion to

reopen his case because Bodnar failed to show that the parties entered into an oral

settlement agreement separate from the written settlement agreement. See Golden

v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp. , 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015)

(construction a nd e nforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by local law

of contract interpretation) ; Banner Ent m ’t

, Inc. v. Superior Court (Alchemy

Filmworks, Inc. )

, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598, 603 (Ct. App. 1998) ( “California law is

clear that there is no contract un til there has been a meeting of the minds

on all material points.” ); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 ( setting forth essential

elements to the existence of a contract under California law).

AFFIRMED.