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

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

The undersigned, Joe Loeppky, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)          
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Search By Headlines.com Corp. for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2009 (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 Search By
Headlines.com Corp.

Dated: June 15, 2009



/s/Joe Loeppky Joe Loeppky
President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)







A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, 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 Search By
Headlines.com Corp. and will be retained by Search By Headlines.com Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MILLARD DEAN LOFTIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(2:92-CR-9)

May 16, 1997

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Millard Dean Loftis (“Loftis”) appeals the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. On appeal, Loftis asserts

that his indictment was insuffic ient, that his counsel was

ineffective for failing to appeal the district court’s admission of2

the length of his prior sentence, that his trial counsel was

ineffective for not challenging a search warrant of his home for

“staleness” of information, that he was denied his right to testify

in his own behalf, and that the district court should have treated

h is untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s report on

Loftis’s § 2255 motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. For the

following reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the §

2255 motion.

After reviewing the record and considering Loftis’s claims and

the parties’ arguments, we find no merit in Loftis’s contentions.

Under any standard of review, the indictment adequately stated the

essential ele ments of Loftis’s offense under 28 U.S.C. § 5861(d)

and was sufficient. Regarding the introduction of the length of

L oftis’s prior sentence, he has made an insufficient showing of

prejudice and we thus reject his claim. See United States v.

Fuller , 769 F.2d 1095, 1098 (5th Cir. 1985). We likewise reject

Loftis’s assertion of error in relation to the issuance of a search

warrant for his home. See United States v. McKeever , 5 F.3d 863,

866 (5th Cir. 1993). Loftis also claims that his counsel prevented

him from testifying, in violation of his consti tutional right to

testify, and we review this claim for plain error. See Highlands

Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

, 27 F.3d 1027,

1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994). The record does not present evidence to

support Loftis’s claim. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting3

his convictions, there is no suggestion that the alleged prevention

of Loftis’s testifying pr esented the necessary prejudice, or

serious effect on the fairness o r integrity of the proceedings,

that is required to justify a finding of plain error. See United

States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) ( en banc ).

Loftis’s last assertion of error also fails. Loftis did not

demonst rate that the district court abused its discretion in not

construing Loftis’s late objections as a Rule 59(e) motion nor did

he demonstrate any resulting prejudice. In addition, his attempted

prese ntation to the district court should have been accomplished

through a mot ion for leave to file a second § 2255 motion. S ee

Southern Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co. , 2 F.3d 606,

611-12 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,587
<SECURITIES>                                     4,943
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (300)
<INVENTORY>                                        350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,100
<PP&E>                                           6,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,841)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,270
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,291)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,643
<SALES>                                         36,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,700
<CGS>                                            5,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (37)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,722
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51160

Summary Calendar

 

BONIFACIO JUAREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MAURICE NEWCOMB, Captain; DAYTON POPPELL, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CV-931

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

November 3, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bonifacio Juarez, Texas prisoner # 722475, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as

frivolous. Juarez argues that there were constitutional

violations with respect to prison disciplinary hearings which

ultimately resulted in the loss of 45 days of recreational and

commissary privileges, as well as a period of time of solitary

confinement and a change in his custody classification status.

Our review of the record reveals that there was some

evidence supporting the hearing officer’s disciplinary decisions 
No. 98-51160

-2-

that Juarez participated in the assault of another prisoner; that

Juarez has failed to show that there were any procedural errors

with the disciplinary proceedings after the first one, which was

vacated in Juarez’s administrative appeal; and that Juarez’s

ultimate punishment did not involve the loss of good-time credit. 

Juarez has failed to show that he was deprived of a

constitutional right. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1044

(5th Cir. 1986); Wolff v. McDonnel, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64 (1974);

Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Juarez’s § 1983 suit lacked an arguable basis in law, and the

district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous was not

an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-34 (1992).

To the extent that Juarez’s brief requests the appointment

of counsel for his appeal or challenges the district court’s

denial of his district court motion for the appointment of

counsel, Juarez does not make the requisite showing for the

appointment of counsel or that one was necessary in the district

court. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.

1982). His request is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JEANNETTE PETERSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-15217

ORDER CANCELING STATUS CONFERENCE

On November 12, 2009, the parties in the above-captioned case submitted a

“Stipulation to Dismissal” to the court. After reviewing the “Stipulation,” it was evident

that attorney Thomas Norton was representing Plaintiffs. The papers filed by Plaintiffs,

however, were electronically signed by another attorney, Christopher Trainor. This

practice, whereby a party’s actual attorney files papers using another attorney’s ECF

username and login, violates the local rules governing electronic filing. See E.D. Mich.

LR App’x ECF R3. The court scheduled a status conference with the attorney of record,

Mr. Trainor, and Plaintiffs to address the issue. After scheduling the conference, Mr.

Norton has complied with the local rules, registered as an electronic filer, made an

appearance on the court’s docket, and adequately explained the situation in a letter

addressed to the court. Now that the inconsistency of attorneys identified in the court’s

docket has been resolved, the court will cancel the status conference and enter the

parties’ stipulated dismissal. Accordingly,

2:08-cv-15217-RHC-VMM Doc # 32 Filed 11/24/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 122
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-15217.PETERSON.Cancel.Conf.bsc.wpd

2

IT IS ORDERED that the scheduling conference scheduled for November 25,

2009, at 2:00 p.m. is CANCELLED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 24, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, November 24, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-15217-RHC-VMM Doc # 32 Filed 11/24/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 123
Order entered October 6, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-15-01188-CV No. 05-15-01189-CV

IN RE ANDREW LEE JACKSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-9104916-IL, F-9202256-IL



### ORDER Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans and Whitehill

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 22, 2009

0415 

# Order

April 22, 2009

137999

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137999 COA: 288477 Oakland CC: 2007-213173-FH LARRY J. McCALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, K

. M

. MC DONALD , T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SAMUEL N. KINYANJUI

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 20140 0055

SPECI AL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 14 November 2013

. **Military Judge:** LtCol L.J. Francis, USMC

. **Convening Authority:** Commanding General, Training Command,

Quantico, VA

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** LtCol M.E. Sayegh,

USMC

. **For App ellant:**  Capt David Peters, USMC.

**For Appellee:** Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

**30 April 2014** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**---------------------------------------------------**

After careful consideration of t he record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-22-1998

United States v. Tyler

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-7776

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"United States v. Tyler" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 283.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/283
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 96-7776 

 USA v. WILLIE TYLER 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

Opinion issued on December 15, 1998, to the above-entitled appeal 

and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 

 1) On page 19, paragraph beginning with the word Thus, the 

word "rights" after Fifth Amendment should be "right;" in the 

same paragraph the word "rights" after Sixth Amendment should be 

"right." 

 2) On page 20, right before the caption II., the word 

"rights" after Sixth Amendment should be "right." 

 

 Very truly yours, 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

Dated: December 22, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 362 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 362

 To provide for the appointment of 1 additional Federal district judge 
     for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Roth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the appointment of 1 additional Federal district judge 
     for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 
              OF WISCONSIN.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
eastern district of Wisconsin.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, shall reflect the change in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized under subsection 
(a), such table is amended by amending the item relating to Wisconsin 
to read as follows:

``Wisconsin:
    ``Eastern........................................                 5
    ``Western........................................              2''.

SEC. 2. HOLDING OF COURT.

    The chief judge of the eastern district of Wisconsin shall 
designate at least 1 judge who shall hold court for such district in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No: 08-20669-9

v.

JUAN GABRIEL LARA-TELLO,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S 

MOTION FOR DETENTION

This matter has come before the court for a de novo review of the government’s

appeal of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s order for bond as to defendant Juan

Gabriel Lara-Tello. For the reasons fully stated on the record the government’s appeal

of the Magistrate Judge’s order is GRANTED that the defendant is remanded to the

custody of the US Marshals to be detained.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 22, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 22, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

Case 2:08-cr-20669-RHC-MKM ECF No. 256, PageID.1984 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31209-31210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15632]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Re-
Establishment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Committee Re-
establishment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the re-establishment of the 
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. The committee 
reviews matters relating to the commercial space transportation 
industry and provides information, advice, and recommendations on 
commercial space transportation activities. The functions of the 
committee are solely advisory and the committee will comply with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The Secretary of Transportation has determined that the use of the 
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee is in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on FAA by 
law. Meetings of the committee will be open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, 400 7th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20591, telephone (202) 366-2932.


[[Page 31210]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 1996.
Frank C. Weaver,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-15632 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Thomas J. SQUIREK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF SESSOMS & ROGERS, P.A.; Stuart M. Sessoms, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1746.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Thomas J. Squirek, Appellant Pro Se. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Joshua Blake Durham, Poyner & Spruill, Charlotte, North Carolina; Stuart M. Sessoms, Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Squirek appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., and Stuart M. Sessoms, Jr. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.,*2003 WL 21026580, No. CA-02—40—1 (M.D.N.C. May 5, 2003). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.

vs Case No: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,

vs

FREDERICK WEIDINGER

AND BRAINTECH, INC.,

Third Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant.

____________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This Court entered an Order on April 7, 2010 and again on May 19, 2010,

notifying Plaintiff Braintech that as a corporation it could not appear in Federal Court

without an attorney. The Court gave Braintech until May 21, 2010 for counsel to file an

appearance. No counsel had filed an appearance.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.

The case will proceed on Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff Shafi’s claim

against Counter-Defendant/Third-Party Defendants Weidinger and Braintech.

The Court set a Status Conference - via telephone on June 9, 2010 at 4:30 pm. 

The Court will initiate the conference call.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 36 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED.

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: June 3, 2010

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

June 3, 2010.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 36 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2