alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN MAURICE HENOUD, a/k/a John Harvey, a/k/a J. M. Harvey, a/k/a J. M. Hardey, a/k/a Jerry Geohn Davidson , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:04

- cr
- 000 0 4

- AWA

- TEM

- 1 )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John Maurice Henoud, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFF ICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Maurice Henoud seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion a s a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and d enying it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will
not is sue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that th e district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prison er must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that He noud has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Henoud ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2 255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or3 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously u navailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Henoud ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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.
DISMISSED
By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect

of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th

Cir. BAP LBR 8013-1(b). See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8010-1(c).

File Name: 13b0008n.06

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

______________________________________

In re: ROGER MASON RALPH,

Debtor.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

No. 13-8006

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Western District of Tennessee

Case No. 09-23696

Decided and Filed: August 27, 2013

Before: HARRIS, HUMPHREY, AND PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

____________________

COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Thomas H. Strawn, STRAWN & EDWARDS, PLLC, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for

Appellant. John L. Ryder, Brent A. Heilig, HARRIS SHELTON HANOVER WALSH PLLC,

Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellees.

____________________

OPINION

____________________

ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. At issue in this appeal is the

scope of the exception in Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to the one-year

time limit under Rule 60(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The debtor-appellant asserts

that the exception in Rule 9024 “for the reconsideration of an order allowing or disallowing a claim

against the estate entered without a contest” encompasses his request to revisit portions of a
comprehensive settlement agreement, entered nearly three years earlier, which involved much more

than just the allowance or disallowance of a claim. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs,

and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the

debtor-appellant’s motion fell outside the exception in Rule 9024 for the reconsideration of claims

and was therefore untimely under Rule 60(c). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the

bankruptcy court’s order entered on November 26, 2012. Order Den. Mots. to Partially Set Aside

Consent Orders, In re Roger Mason Ralph, No. 09-23696 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2012), ECF

No. 284.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 1350
Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
  
 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 report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Ramesh
Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: 
March 28, 2008
 
 By:
      /s/ Ramesh ZachariasName:
      Dr. Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
      Chief Executive
Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except for the limited circumstances

set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20277

AHSAN AHMAD FARUKI, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

AHMED R. AZEEZ,

Plaintiff--Appellant,

versus

PARSONS S.I.P., INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Lower Court No. H-95-CV-998

March 3, 2000

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having heard the arguments of counsel and reviewed the

briefs and pertinent portions of the record, this court affirms on the

basis of the trial court’s opinion.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Wu Yongliang, Chief Financial Officer of China Eastern
Airlines Corporation Limited (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Company’s
annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) (i) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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: | April 24, 2013 |  | /s/ Wu Yongliang                   
|----- | -------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|      |                |  | Name:    Wu Yongliang              
|      |                |  | Title:      Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Metalline Mining Company on Form S-3 (file No. 333-154631) and Form S-8 (file No. 333-140588), of our report dated January 4, 2010 relating to the audit of the consolidated financial statements for the years ending October 31, 2009 and 2008, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Metalline Mining Company for the year ended October 31, 2009.



/s/ Hein & Associates LLP



HEIN& ASSOCIATES LLP



Denver, Colorado

January 7, 2010
*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 26, 2007*

Decided October 4, 2007

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 06-2747

EDWARD ALLEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 01 CR 169-1

William T. Hart,

Judge.

O R D E R

After robbing three banks (one of them, twice) in Chicago and Oak Park,

Illinois, Edward Allen was found guilty of two counts of bank robbery in the federal

courts. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court sentenced him to a total of 264

months’ imprisonment. More than four years after the entry of judgment, Allen

filed what he styled as a motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b). He claimed that his guilty pleas were involuntary because neither

the prosecutor nor his own counsel told him about the Statutes at Large—a failure

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-2747 Page 2

that, according to Allen, prevented him from understanding the robbery charges. 

The district court summarily denied the motion, and Allen appeals.

Allen’s motion presents a claim for relief that is substantively within the

scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 1, and so the government argues that the submission is

a motion under § 2255 and that we should dismiss this appeal because Allen did not

obtain a certificate of appealability. See, e.g., United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d

845, 849 (7th Cir. 2007); Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004). 

The district court did not say what characterization it gave the motion, though the

absence of any warning to Allen suggests that the court rejected the reading now

urged by the government. See United States v. Castro, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003);

Melton, 359 F.3d at 857. In any event, Allen’s submission is frivolous, and in this

court he concedes that “the district court had no grounds to grant the motion.” 

Allen offers a different claim here—that his trial lawyer failed to file a notice of

appeal as directed—and whereas that contention is not raised in Allen’s motion it is

thus waived. See Estremera v. United States, 442 F.3d 580, 587 (7th Cir. 2006). 

 

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 13, 2019

p1210 

# Order

Clerk December 13, 2019

158578

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158578

COA: 338400

Calhoun CC: 2016

- 001379

- FH

MICHAEL BRIAN McJUNKIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application f or leave to appeal the August 28, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part II of the judgment of the Court of

Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Calhoun C ircuit Court for an evidentiary

hearing to determine whether the consent or the plain view exceptions to the warrant

requirement justify the warrantless search and seizure in this case. Specifically, the court

shall determine: (1) whether, based on an as sessment of the totality of the circumstances,

consent was freely and voluntarily given, see People v Borchard

- Ruhland , 460 Mich 278,

294 (1999); (2) whether an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that the

homeowner had actual or apparent authori ty to consent to a search of the vehicle that the

defendant had driven into the garage, see People v Mead , 503 Mich 205, 216

- 219 (2019);

and (3) whether, assuming the officers were lawfully in the garage, the items seized from

the vehicle were visible and their incriminating character was immediately apparent, see

People v Champion , 452 Mich 92, 101 (1996). In all other respects, leave to appeal is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 10, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01019-CV 

NATIVIDAD RAMIREZ, Appellant 

V. 

LIDIA RAMIREZ, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-53739-2013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Before the Court is appellant’s October 28, 2016 notice of nonsuit. The parties entered 

into a Rule 11 agreement and settled all claims and controversies in the appeal. Appellant now 

requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

161019F.P05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

NATIVIDAD RAMIREZ, Appellant 

No. 05-16-01019-CV V. 

LIDIA RAMIREZ, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-53739-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Stoddart and Schenck participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Lidia 

Ramirez recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Natividad Ramirez. 

Judgment entered November 10, 2016.
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>



                                  CERTIFICATION

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of  Energas  Resources,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  January 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), George G. Shaw, the Chief
Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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 his 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 the Company.


Date:  March 20, 2008
                                By: /s/ George G. Shaw
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    George G. Shaw, Chief  Executive and
                                    Principal Financial Officer
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1677]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

The Foreign-Trade Zones Board (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the application (filed 12/01/09) submitted by the Culpeper County Chamber of Commerce, grantee of FTZ 185, requesting reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the County of Culpeper, a public corporation, which has accepted such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.

Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the County of Culpeper as the new grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 185, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. The Secretary of Commerce, as Chairman of the Board, is hereby authorized to issue an appropriate Board Order.

                    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th                     day of April 2010.                

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

ATTEST:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-10617 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Sean A. Cassidy, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CuraGen Corporation; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this amended 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.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ SEAN A. CASSIDY                       
|Dated: June 19, 2009 |  |  |  | Sean A. Cassidy                           
|                     |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21  -  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT MONARCH SERVICES, INC.


                                                       Percent
                                Jurisdiction          of Voting
                                  in Which            Securities
NAME OF CORPORATION             Incorporated            Owned
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Girls' Life, Inc.                 Maryland               100%

Creampuffs, Inc.                  Maryland               100%

Broken Windows, Inc.              Maryland               100%

Girlslife.com, Inc.               Maryland               100%
Exhibit 31.3

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Howard C. Birndorf, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Nanogen, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report on Form 10-K/A 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.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 24, 2006



/s/    HOWARD C. BIRNDORFHoward C. Birndorf Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ John Baumbauer                                             |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  John Baumbauer                                                       |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  September 14, 2009                                                   |
Order entered December 19, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00864
- CV
JOHNSON & JOHNSON , ET AL. , Appellant s V. LINDA BATISTE, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 14350 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellee’s December 17, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by JANUARY 12, 2015 . We caution appellee that no further extension of time will be g ranted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE