alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 26, 2006

Decided October 30, 2006

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 06-1424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CARSON J. JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin

No. 05-CR-130

Rudolph T. Randa,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Carson Jones pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a

felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possessing crack cocaine with intent to

distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). As part of his plea agreement, Jones waived

the right to appeal his sentence except to the extent that it exceeded the statutory

maximum, was based upon an unconstitutional factor, or resulted from

constitutionally deficient performance by trial counsel. Jones later sought to

withdraw his guilty pleas in order to revive a motion to suppress that he abandoned

as part of his plea agreement. The district court declined to permit withdrawal and

sentenced Jones to a total of 70 months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised

release. Jones filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has moved to

withdraw because she cannot discern a nonfrivolous argument for appeal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones has not responded to counsel’s

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 06-1424 Page 2

motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). Counsel’s brief is facially adequate, and so we review

only the potential arguments that she has identified. See United States v. Tabb,

125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997). 

Counsel first considers whether Jones might challenge the voluntariness of

his guilty pleas. But counsel informs us that Jones does not wish to take back his

pleas, and we have held that a lawyer making an Anders submission should not

even explore questions about a guilty plea unless the defendant wants the plea set

aside. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). And though

counsel represents that Jones does want to argue the merits of his suppression

motion, Jones entered into an unconditional plea and thus waived his opportunity

to do so. See Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel also correctly notes that any possible challenge to Jones’ sentence

would be rendered frivolous by the waiver of appeal included in his plea agreement. 

See United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting that waiver

of appeal “stands or falls” with the plea). Because Jones wants to keep the benefit

of the government’s concessions, any attempt to escape the appeal waiver would be

frivolous. See United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2005). 

 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Walter Edward HELGOTH, Defendant/Appellant. Walter Edward HELGOTH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61257, 63029.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 15, 1994.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1994.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Walter Helgoth appeals his conviction after a jury trial for use of a child in a sexual performance in violation of § 568.080 RSMo (1986) (Count I), promoting sexual performance by a child in violation of § 568.090 RSMo (1986) (Count II), promoting child pornography in violation of § 573.025 RSMo (1986) (Count III), abuse of a child in violation of § 568.060 RSMo (1986) (Count IV), and deviate sexual assault in violation of § 566.070 RSMo (1986) (Count V). Helgoth also appeals from an order denying his Rule 29.15 motion on the merits following an evi-dentiary hearing. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24784-24785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12311]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-229-001]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 10, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 7, 1996, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
following tariff sheets to be effective June 1, 1996:

Fifth Revised Volume No. 1
Title Page

    Koch states that the tariff sheet listed above is being filed to 
make minor

[[Page 24785]]

correction to the May 2, 1996 filing in the above referenced docket. 
Koch's May 2, 1996, filing included tariff changes to format the title 
page, and the changes required by Commission's Order No. 582. The 
instant filing only formats the title page to reflect the same 
information as the electronic copy.
    Koch also states that the revised tariff sheets are being served 
upon all its customers, State Commissions, and other interested 
parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's regulations. All 
such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12311 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Infrastructure Investment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned 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:





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 operation of the Company.





Date: May 16, 2011





/s/  Zhang ChunxianName: Zhang ChunxianTitle: Chief Financial Officer, Principal

Financial and Accounting Officer and

Director
#### Kevin HURLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41017.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 25, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 29, 1989.

John L. Vohs, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, David D. Cathcart, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TRX, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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: April 25, 2008

/s/ David D.
Cathcart

David D. Cathcart

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Colon, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered on March 17, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of arson in the second degree and burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from *8 Vs*to 25 years for the arson count and from 5 to 15 years for the burglary count, is unanimously affirmed.

Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1








                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
SignalSoft Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-54412) on Form S-8 of SignalSoft Corporation of our report dated February 2,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SignalSoft Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 2000 and the related consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity (deficit)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K,
of SignalSoft Corporation.




                                            KPMG LLP


Boulder, Colorado
March 29, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7396

GREGORY LYNN GORDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN CLAYTON HUNCKE; DET BRIAN WAYNE KEZIAH; DETECTIVE 

EDDIE CATHEY; SHERIFF TREY ROBINSON; DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

CHRISTOPHER BRAGG; JUDGE SGT. B. D. HELMS; A. E. BARNES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:11-cv-02572-HMH)

Submitted: January 12, 2012 Decided: January 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lynn Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. William L. Hill, James 

Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Gordon appeals the district court’s order 

transferring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action to the Western 

District of North Carolina for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Gordon seeks to appeal is not a final order, nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny all pending 

motions. 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
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.1



                 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PENWEST PHARMACEUTICALS CO.
                           2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

             Approved by the Board of Directors on September 7, 2006

That the following be added as a new Section 3(c) to the Penwest Pharmaceuticals
Co. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan:

     "Delegation to Officers. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the
     Board may delegate to one or more officers of the Company the power to
     grant Awards to employees or officers of the Company or any of its present
     or future subsidiary corporations and to exercise such other powers under
     the Plan as the Board may determine, provided that the Board shall fix the
     terms of the Awards to be granted by such officers (including the exercise
     price of such Awards, which may include a formula by which the exercise
     price will be determined) and the maximum number of shares subject to
     Awards that the officers may grant; provided further, however, that no
     officer shall be authorized to grant Awards to any "executive officer" of
     the Company (as defined by Rule 3b-7 under the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")) or to any "officer" of the Company
     (as defined by Rule 16a-1 under the Exchange Act)."
---

CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Lam, President and Chief Executive Officer of Balsam
  Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”), 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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/ David Lam                        
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | David Lam                            
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | May 16, 2005                         

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant
  and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB 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 Registrant
  under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
  made before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
  incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Infrastructure Investment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned 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:





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 operation of the Company.





Date: February 22. 2011





/s/   Li XipengName: Li XipengTitle: Chief Executive Officer, Principal

Executive Officer and Chairman of the

Board
**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 Annual Report of American Racing Capital, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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:




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 operation of the Company.




Date:March
                15, 2007
            By:
            */s/A.
                Robert Koveleski*Name:
            A.
                Robert KoveleskiTitle:
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer, Interim
              Chief
                Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting
              Officer





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








EXHIBIT
      32.1-1
#### Leo T. OLSON, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Bradley A. HENRICHS and Ambassador Group, Inc., Defendant/Appellants, and Paramount Properties, Inc., Defendant.

No. WD 51147.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 26, 1996.

Benny J. Harding, Kansas City, for appellants.

Gerard Eftink, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Henrichs and Ambassador Group on plaintiffs breach of contract claim. Defendants appeal. There is no precedential value in publishing an opinion, therefore, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Liska Biometry, Inc. (the "Company")on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lam Ko Chau,
Principal 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, as amended; and

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

/s/ Lam Ko Chau
Lam Ko Chau, President (Principal Executive Officer), Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

April 6, 2004
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5768 

To release the reversionary interest of the United States in certain nonFederal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 

Mr. MOORE of Utah (for himself, Mr. CURTIS, and Mr. OWENS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To release the reversionary interest of the United States 

in certain non-Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, 

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 ‘‘University of Utah 

5 Research Park Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE 

7 UNITED STATES IN NON-FEDERAL LAND IN 

8 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. 

9 (a) RELEASE.—There is released to the University of 

10 Utah, without consideration, the reversionary interest of 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5768 IH

1 the United States in the non-Federal land described in 

2 subsection (b). 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The 

4 non-Federal land referred to in subsection (a) is the ap5 proximately 593 acres of land of the University of Utah— 

6 (1) identified in the patent— 

7 (A) numbered 43–99–0012; and 

8 (B) dated October 18, 1968; and 

9 (2) more particularly described as tracts D (ex10 cluding the parcels numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), G, 

11 and J, T. 1 S., R. 1 E., Salt Lake Meridian. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB