alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-17511. D.C. Nos. CV-99-00324-RCB, CR-90-00233-RCB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 29, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Daniel Morales appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Morales contends that his § 2255 motion is timely because he did not realize until December 1998 that the government’s alleged bribery of principal witnesses who testified against him at trial was, in fact, *693illegal.1 This contention is without merit. *See Hasan v. Galaza,*254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that a defendant’s failure to appreciate the legal significance of a hitherto known factual predicate does not delay the running of the § 2255 limitations period). Moreover, Morales demonstrates no grounds for equitable tolling. *See Frye v. Hickman,*273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended) (stating that equitable tolling is available only if “ ‘extraordinary circumstances’ beyond the prisoner’s control ... made it impossible to file a petition on time”).

Finally, his claim based on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) is foreclosed by *United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes*282 F.3d 664, 671 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively on collateral review).

AFFIRMED.2

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Appellant Daniel Morales’ August 7, 2002, pro se motion to amend counsel’s opening brief, filed on August 7, 2002, is granted, and the brief as amended is hereby deemed submitted.

2

. Counsel’s May 17, 2002, motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) is construed as a standard motion to withdraw. *See Ellis v. Armenakis,*222 F.3d 627, 632-33 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that the *Anders*procedure does not apply to post-conviction appeals). So construed, the motion is granted.
**EXHIBIT 31(a)**

I, Dr. Nafi Onat, chief executive officer of Star Energy Corporation (“Registrant”) certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (“Report”) of Registrant; 

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; 

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 period presented in this Report; 

4.     The Registrants other certifying officer and I are 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 is made known to us 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 our 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; and 

c)     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 (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed based on our 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: March 28, 2006 

/s/ Dr. Nafi Onat

Dr. Nafi Onat 

Chief Executive Officer 

----
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00161-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.F.-N., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 62268-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

June 6, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Jimmy Nunn, Sr., appeals from the trial court’s Order Holding 

Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Medical Support, Granting Judgment for 

Arrearages, and Suspending Commitment. Now pending before this Court is Appellant’s 

motion seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The Court finds that the motion 

complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that 

granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would 

otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant 
2

the motion. The appeal is dismissed.1 Because the motion does not reflect an agreement 

of the parties concerning the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against Appellant. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

1 The appeal is also dismissed because Appellant failed to pay the requisite filing fee. By letter, we 

notified Appellant that the filing fee was overdue and that unless he was excused from paying court costs, 

failure to pay the filing fee by May 13, 2024, would result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant has yet to 

pay the fee or seek leave to proceed without payment of court costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 25.1(b), 

42.3(c).
#### The Fair Store Co. *v.*Christman, Admr. Harris *v.*Christman, Admr.

(Nos. 22919 and 22941

Decided February 17, 1932.)

*Mr. John M. McCaslin,*for plaintiff in error in cause No, 22919.

*Messrs. Fricke & Spiegel,*for plaintiff in error in cause No. 22941.

*Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for*defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgments of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same are hereby, affirmed for the following reasons:

(1) That there was no intervening cause of the injury to the decedent, the concurring negligence of the drivers of the respective motor vehicles of plaintiffs in error being the one and only cause of decedent’s death; and failure to use the words “proximate cause,” in instructions to the jury before argument, as to the liability of the defendants, is not prejudicial, it appearing that such instructions could not have misled the jury as to the one and only cause of the accident.

(2) The death of plaintiff’s decedent being caused by the concurring negligence of the drivers of two motor vehicles coming to such intersection at *673right angles to each other at the same time, the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury the rule provided in Section 6310-28a, General Code, governing the conduct of motor vehicle drivers as between themselves upon approaching a street intersection, was not erroneous.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Day and Kinkade, JJ., concur.

Stephenson, J., not participating.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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;d)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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.
  By:
    
    /s/Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15694]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. CP96-152-000, RP95-212, et al. PR94-3-000]


Riverside Pipeline Company, KansOk Partnership, et al., KansOk 
Partnership; Notice of Public Conference

June 14, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 25, 1996, at 10:00 am, the Commission 
Staff will convene a public conference in the above captioned dockets 
for the parties to discuss the resolution of the issues arising from 
Riverside's certificate application in Docket No. CP96-152-000, as well 
as all other issues in the referenced dockets.
    The conference will be held at the office of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 1st Street NE, Washington, D.C., 20426, in 
Room 3M-2B. All interested parties are invited to attend. However, 
attendance at the conference will not confer party status.

    For further information, contact George Dornbusch (202) 208-
0881, Office of Pipeline Regulation, Room 81-31.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15694 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Reginald CURTIS, Appellant.

No. 61183.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 15, 1993.

*860S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Saleeby, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was tried on an information in lieu of indictment for robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 569.020 RSMo. (1986). Defendant was found guilty of a Class A felony and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment as a prior offender. Defendant alleges the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a venireperson for cause and challenges the use of the definition of reasonable doubt from MAI-CR3rd 302.04 and the procedure of empaneling the grand and petit juries in St. Louis. We affirm.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com


QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
 

EXHIBIT 10.21.1  




  AMENDED
  EXHIBIT "A"
  GAS PURCHASE CONTRACT
  As Of: October 1, 1994
  Between
  CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION ("BUYER")
  and
  IGI
RESOURCES, INC. ("SELLER")       



	 
	 	 

	 	 	 
	 

Effective Date of this Exhibit "A":	 
 	 

October 1, 2000
	 

Ending Date of this Exhibit "A":	 
 	 

March 31, 2001
	 

Delivery Point	 
 	 

As defined in Section 1.01(g) of the Contract noted above
	 

Maximum Daily Contract Quantity (MMBTU)	 
 	 

7,446
	 

 	 
 	 

 



Delivery Point Selling Price  


	1.
	The
Delivery Point Selling Price shall be equal to [*] ($[*] U.S. dry) per MMBTU at AECO-C Rub plus the actual cost of
firm NOVA re-delivery service and firm ANG receipt and re-delivery service plus any applicable allowance for fuel-in-kind associated with such services. 





	 	 	"BUYER"

CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
	 

 	 
 	 
 By:	 



	 	 	Name

Title:  Vice-President Gas Supply
	 

 	 
 	 
 "SELLER"

IGI RESOURCES
	 

 	 
 	 
 By:	 


 Randy Schultz
 Executive Vice President

Chief Operating Officer





[*] =
Redacted 








QuickLinks


AMENDED EXHIBIT "A" GAS PURCHASE CONTRACT As Of: October 1, 1994 Between CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION ("BUYER") and IGI RESOURCES, INC. ("SELLER")
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated February 15, 2002 on the consolidated financial
statements of ITC/\DeltaCom, Inc. and subsidiaries and the related financial
statement schedule, included in this Form 10-K, into ITC/\DeltaCom, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, No. 333-65038, 333-42785,
No. 333-62773, No. 333-85627 and No. 333-49034 and Form S-3, File No. 333-75635
and No. 333-34372.


/s/   Arthur Andersen LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 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 Online Innovation,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marlene C. Schluter,
  Principal 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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date:                                                            | September
      27, 2004 | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|                                                                 |                          | 
|                                                                 |                          | 
|/s/ Marlene C. Schluter                                          |                         
|Marlene C. Schluter, Director,
      Principal Financial Officer |                         

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ORNA MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2329

[October 18, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Eli Breger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2013CA010264XXXXMB.

Michael A. Levin of the Law Offices of Michael A. Levin, Weston, and 

Andrew M. Kassier of Andrew M. Kassier, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Brandon S. Vesely of Albertelli Law, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure proceeding we affirm the denial of appellant’s postjudgment motion for sanctions against the appellee based on Applegate v. 

Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (finding 

that in the absence of an adequate record on appeal an appellate court 

must affirm an order or judgment). Although the parties filed a stipulation 

of facts, those facts do not show that the court abused its discretion in 

denying the motion. See Galasso v. Gargione, 40 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2010). Here, the stipulation contained no facts regarding whether the 

appellee paid previously awarded amounts of sanctions, one of the 

grounds upon which additional sanctions were sought. Further, the 

appellant accused the bank of misconduct in proceeding with the loan 

foreclosure while the appellant was seeking modification and in refusing

to give her a payoff figure for her loan. There is simply insufficient evidence 

within the statement of facts or in this record to show without dispute that 

the bank acted improperly, so that the denial of sanctions was an abuse 

of discretion.

Affirmed. 
2

WARNER, LEVINE and BUCHANAN, LAURIE E., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SavWatt USA, Inc. ("Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Isaac H. Sutton,
President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: October 5, 2010                     /s/  Isaac H. Sutton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Isaac H. Sutton
                                      Its: President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 6 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 7 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 8 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 9 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 10 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 11 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 12 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 13 of 14
Case 3:18-cv-08004-GMS--JZB Document 4 Filed 01/11/18 Page 14 of 14
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 Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard M. Lerner, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 25, 2005 |  | /s/ Richard M. Lerner  
|               |  | Richard M. Lerner      
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer



48
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC (BPV)

ORDER 

 IT IS ODEREDERD that the material witnesses in this action, Kristian PerezVillanueva and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, are to be released to the Department of 

Homeland Security to be returned to their country of origin. 

 Dated this 8th day of March, 2018. 

 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 34 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 1
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Supreme Foodservice GmbH ) 

) 

Under Contract No. SPM300-05-D-3130 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59487 

Daniel P. Graham, Esq. 

Philip J. Davis, Esq. 

Tyler E. Robinson, Esq. 

Wiley Rein LLP 

Washington, DC 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Kristin K. Bray, Esq. 

John F. Basiak, Jr., Esq. 

Corinne Foley Petersen, Esq. 

Kari L. Scheck, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

DLA Troop Support 

Philadelphia, PA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, dated 19 May 2015, 

this appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 21 May 2015 

c 

oministrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59487, Appeal of Supreme 

Foodservice GmbH, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals