alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSTY LAPALME,

Defendant/Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Respondent.

 /

Case No. 06-20465-50

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On July 31, 2014, this Court denied Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This matter is now before the Court on

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability [2615] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

The court may issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

[T]he petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits. He has

already failed in that endeavor. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are

debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a

different manner] or that the questions are "adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further."

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983); Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 549

(E.D. Mich. 1999). 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence [2611], this Court reiterates its finding that Petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right with respect to any of his claims. 

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2619 Filed 08/20/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 18972
Being further advised in the premises and having read the pleadings, the Court hereby

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 20, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on August 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2619 Filed 08/20/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 18973
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3849

To amend the Clean Air Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to clarify the listing of a unique chemical substance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 1996

Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr.

MCINTOSH, Mr. DELAY, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. FLANAGAN, Mr.

SCHAEFER, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. FROST, Ms.

JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma,

Mr. NETHERCUTT, and Mr. SOLOMON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act and the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to clarify the listing

of a unique chemical substance.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3849 IH

1 SECTION 1. DELETION FROM CLEAN AIR ACT AMEND2 MENTS LISTING.

3 Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

4 7412) is amended by adding at the end of footnote 2

5 thereof the following: ‘‘The glycol ether category does not

6 include ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (CAS #111–76–

7 2) as used or emitted by metal or composite can manufac8 turing.’’

9 SEC. 2. DELETION FROM SARA TITLE III LISTING.

10 Section 313(d)(3) of the Superfund Amendments and

11 Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11023) is amend12 ed by adding at the end thereof the following: ‘‘The Ad13 ministrator shall delete from the lists implemented pursu14 ant to subsection (c) and section 302(a)(2), any substance

15 that has been deleted or removed in any manner from the

16 list of pollutants under section 112(b) of the Clean Air

17 Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)) unless the Administrator dem18 onstrates based on convincing evidence that relevant stor19 age, use or release of such a substance continues to pose

20 a significant threat to human health, or the environment

21 as a result of its reactivity, volatility, dispersability, com22 bustibility, flammability, or acute human health effects.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO STEWART,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:04-cr-00377-JFM-1; 1:10-cv-02039-JFM)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the 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 prisoner 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 15thday of August, 2008.                                                                                                                  
|   

HERB ADAMSHerb AdamsChief Executive Officer














---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


         In connection with the Annual Report of CPC of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rod A.
Shipman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the
Company.


                                         CPC OF AMERICA, INC.

Date: March 14, 2007
                                         By: /s/ Rod A. Shipman
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Rod A. Shipman, President and Chief
                                                Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rohit Singh, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
 
 
 ROHIT SINGH
 Rohit Singh
 Chief Accounting Officer
 Chief Financial Officer and Director


-1-
Order entered March 2 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01264
- CV
MACY’S RETAIL HOLDIN GS, INC., Appellant

V. AUDON BENAVIDES, Appellee On Appeal from the 1 34th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 10796

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 28, 2020 unopposed second motion
or an extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and
extend t he time to April 6, 2020 . We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.19

AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

2005 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR PLAN

The 2005 Non-Employee Director Plan (the
Plan) of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation), is hereby amended as follows:



| | 1. | Section 5(b) is hereby deleted in its entirety, so that no further Annual Grants shall be made under the Plan after the date of this amendment.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Section 5(c) is hereby amended by deleting the words and the Annual Grants from the second sentence of such Section 5(c).
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

******

Adopted by the Board of Directors on

September 23, 2009
|                             |        |                                   |        |                        |        |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
| Subsidiary                  |   | State or Country of Incorporation |   | Name Doing Business As |   |
| DISH Network L.L.C.         |   | Colorado                          |   | DNLLC                  |   |
| DISH Operating L.L.C.       |   | Colorado                          |   | SATCO                  |   |
| Echosphere L.L.C.           |   | Colorado                          |   | Echosphere             |   |
| Dish Network Service L.L.C. |   | Colorado                          |   | DNSLLC                 |   |
|                        |   |                              |   |                   |   |
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements of PHC, Inc. on Form S-3 (No's.  333-2246,  333-41494,  333-76137 and
333-117146)  and Form S-8 (No's  333-102402 and  333-123842) of our report dated
October  12,  2006,  with  respect  to our audit of the  consolidated  financial
statements of PHC,  Inc. as of June 30, 2006 and for the year then ended,  which
is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006.




/s/  Eisner, LLP
New York, New York
October 12, 2006



                                    -- 89 --
Exhibit 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael O. Matthews, Vice President 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 results of operations of the Company.

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



|                      |  |     |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 26, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Matthews                     
|                      |  |     |  | Michael O. Matthews                         
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### Garry D. ACUNCIUS, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF AUDRAIN, Respondent/Defendant.

No. 64368.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

July 19, 1994.

Michael F. Dandino, Jerome Wallaeh, Wal-lach Law Firm, St. Louis, for appellant.

Thomas I. Osborne, Pros. Atty., Audrain County, Mexico, for respondent.

Before CRIST, P.J., and CRANDALL and CRANE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant in an action for breach of an employment contract. We affirm.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carrón,*586 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 3.1(b)**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF THE**

**ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION**

**OF TRANS WORLD GAMING CORP.**

 

         Pursuantto the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 7, Chapter 78, theundersigned officers do hereby certify:

**         FIRST**: The name of the Corporation is TransWorld Gaming Corp. (the "Corporation").  The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation were filed withthe office of the Secretary of State on October 20, 1993, and amended December8, 1994.

**         SECOND**: The Boardof Directors of the Corporation duly executed the following resolutions onApril 24, 2000:

         **RESOLVED**,that Article FIRST of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporationbe amended in its entirety to read as follows:

**FIRST**: The nameof the Corporation is Trans World Corporation.

         **FURTHERRESOLVED**, that the foregoing amendment to Article FIRST of theCorporation's Articles of Incorporation be submitted to stockholders forapproval; and be it

**         FURTHERRESOLVED**, that in the event that the holders of at least a majorityof the outstanding Common Stock of this Corporation shall adopt the aforesaidproposed amendment in the manner prescribed by the Nevada Revised Statutes,Title 7, Chapter 78, the Chief Executive Officer, of the Corporation and theSecretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Corporation are hereby authorized inthe name and on behalf of the Corporation to execute a certificate settingforth said amendment and to cause the same to be filed pursuant to theprovisions of Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 7, Chapter 78.

         **THIRD**: The totalnumber of outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Corporation is 5,365,449,and the total number of votes entitled to be cast by the holders of all of saidoutstanding shares is 5,365,449.

**         FOURTH**: Holders of2,682,725 shares of Common Stock, representing at least a majority of theoutstanding shares of Common Stock of the aforesaid total number of outstandingshares have adopted the amendments herein at a meeting of Stockholders heldJuly 6, 2000, in accordance with the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes,Title 7, Section 78.320.Signed on August 8, 2000

|   | TRANS  WORLD CORPORATION |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   | By:                      | /s/  Rami S. Ramadan |
|   |                     | Rami  S. Ramadan, President, |
|   |                     | Chief  Executive Officer, |
|   |                     | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     | /s/  Paul D. Benkley |
|   |                     | Paul  D. Benkley |
|   |                     | Acting  Corporate Secretary |
|   |                     |   |
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00027

- CR

J ERMEY S HOUN M YERS AKA J EREMY

S HOUN M YERS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1433128D)

December 13, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered th at the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4042

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500

Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted

Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4042 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION

2 The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in

3 New York City, New York, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

8 States courthouse referred to in section 2 shall be deemed

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Court10 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 27,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant. Robert FLOYD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

Nos. 65250, 67278.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Nov. 21, 1995.

John M. Sehilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon conviction by a jury for robbery in the second degree, § 569.030, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced defendant as a persistent misdemeanor and prior offender pursuant to § 558.016, RSMo 1994, to seven years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Defendant also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential *795value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 11.1

         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               1996          1995          1994
                                                             -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                          <C>           <C>           <C>

Net income (loss)..........................................  $15,245       $(9,441)      $(4,083)
                                                             =======       ========      =======

Weighted average common shares outstanding.................   40,834        10,320        10,278
                                                             -------       -------       -------
Weighted average common share equivalents(1):
 Stock options determined using the treasury
  stock method.............................................    5,547         4,652         4,652
 Convertible preferred stock...............................       --         6,179         6,179
                                                             -------       -------       -------
  Total weighted average common share
   equivalents.............................................    5,547        10,831        10,831
                                                             -------       -------       -------
  Weighted average common and common equivalent
      shares outstanding...................................   46,381        21,151        21,109
                                                             =======       =======       =======
  Net income (loss) per share..............................  $  0.33       $ (0.45)      $ (0.19)
                                                             =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>

(1) Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
    common stock, stock options, warrants and convertible preferred stock issued
    by the Company during the twelve months immediately preceding the initial
    public offering date have been included in the calculation of the weighted
    average common and common equivalent shares outstanding for all periods
    presented using the treasury stock method based on the initial public
    offering price. Stock options, warrants and convertible preferred stock
    issued prior to 1995 are excluded from the computation of weighted average
    common share equivalents for the years ended 1995 and 1994, as their
    inclusion would be antidilutive.