alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Lamont VINCENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-16393.

D.C. No. CV-01-00243-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Lamont Vincent, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his guilty plea convictions for the transportation of controlled substances for sale. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, *see Bribiesca v. Galaza,*215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.

The district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Vincent’s trial counsel was ineffective by failing to accept the initial plea offer made and subsequently withdrawn by the district attorney, and by fading to obtain the grand jury transcripts which allegedly would have shown misconduct on the part of the district attorney and may have brought exculpatory evidence to light.1 We are not persuaded. Vincent has failed to present evidence demonstrating his trial counsel’s performance was deficient, or that he was prejudiced by the alleged errors. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Accordingly, the district court properly denied Vincent’s § 2254 petition because the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Weighall v. Middle,*215 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2000)

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

. We decline to address issues outside the scope of the certificate of appealability. *See Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.1999).

2

. Because Vincent has failed to allege any grounds warranting habeas corpus relief, his request for counsel is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1391 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1391

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to provide for an 
  increase in the authorization of appropriations for community-based 
           family resource and support grants under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. DeFazio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to provide for an 
  increase in the authorization of appropriations for community-based 
           family resource and support grants under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR COMMUNITY-
              BASED FAMILY RESOURCE AND SUPPORT GRANTS.

    Section 210 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act is 
amended by striking ``, $66,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and all that 
follows and inserting ``$66,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $76,000,000 
for fiscal year 2003, $86,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $96,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2005, and $106,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel HERRERA-CHAVEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10656.

D.C. No. CR-00-00608-WHA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Daniel Herrera-Chavez appeals his conviction by guilty plea and his 70-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U. S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Herrera-Chavez’s counsel has submitted a brief stating that he has found no meritorious issues for review. Appellant has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

Our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is *729GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22176]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11411]


Florida Disaster Number FL-00036

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida 
(FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/24/2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 through 09/12/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/11/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/23/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Florida, dated 08/24/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Sarasota, Manatee.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Florida: Hillsborough.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22176 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### SIMON v. TOYE BROS. YELLOW CAB CO.

No. 14522.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 12, 1934.

John P. Sullivan and David Sessler, both of New Orleans, for appellant

Edw. M. Robbert and Michel Musson, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Rosa Simon, an aged negress, was injured by contact with a taxicab, and brought this suit for damages against Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company, the operators of the taxicab.

According to plaintiff, who was a vendor of garden truck, she was struck while standing on the sidewalk with a basket of vegetables on her head. The defendant claims that she walked into the side of the taxicab while it was in motion. The conflicting testimony in the record was resolved by the trial court in plaintiff’s favor and a judgment for $150 awarded her. Defendant has appealed.

We see no reason to disturb the finding of the judge a quo, because, in addition to the respect due a finding of fact by a trial court, his conclusion in this instance is in accord with the probabilities. For example, the taillight on the taxicab was knocked off, a circumstance which is explained by plaintiff’s witness as having been due to contact by the rear ofi the taxicab with a post on the sidewalk, near where the plaintiff was standing, and by defendant’s witnesses as having been knocked off by the basket falling from the plaintiff’s head after she had walked into the side of the taxicab. The plaintiff’s version of this incident is certainly the more plausible one, as is also her contention that she was struck by the taxicab while on the sidewalk, when contrasted with the proposition advanced by defendant to the effect that she deliberately walked into the side of the passing taxicab.

 The amount awarded plaintiff is attacked on the ground that it is excessive, and her injuries do not appear to have been severe. She suffered contusions of the hand and right arm, and was confined to her home for1 several weeks. She claims that she can no longer peddle vegetables because of permanent disabilities resulting from the accident. There is, however, nothing to support this last contention but her own statement, uncorroborated by any medical testimony, and this is insufficient to establish the fact of permanent injury. She did suffer some loss of earnings, and, while no very serious injuries have been proven, the amount awarded is quite modest.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
FIRST AMENDMENT



This is the first amendment to that certain Employment Contract dated as of
April 1, 1997 between SABAN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and MARK ITTNER.

1. The name of the Company employing you shall be changed from SABAN
   ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO FOX FAMILY WORLDWIDE, INC.

2. The Term of your employment pursuant to the terms of your Contract, as
   amended, shall continue through March 31, 2002.

3. Paragraph 3(a) shall be amended by adding the following:

     (4) During the fourth year of the Term, we will pay you a gross annual
     salary of $255,000.

     (5) During the fifth year of the Term, we will pay you a gross annual
     salary of $270,000.

     Paragraph 3(a)(4) of the Contract shall become Paragraph 3(a)(6).

In all other respects the Contract between us shall remain in full force and
effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, you and we have entered into this First Amendment as of
April 1, 1999.

                                                FOX FAMILY WORLDWIDE, INC.


By:  /S/ MARK ITTNER                            By:  /S/ JACK SAMUELS
   -----------------------------                   -----------------------------
   Mark Ittner                                        Sr. V.P. General Counsel
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00004- CV
City of Austin , Appellan t

v. National Media Corporation and ACME P artner ship , L.P., A ppellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 345 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 0-0 0399 7, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant City of Austin has filed an u n o pposed motion to dismiss , explaining that the trial court’s order s that are the subject of this interlocutory appea l are now merg ed into the trial court’s final judgme n t , wh i ch h as been appea led by both parties in a differe nt cause number. We gr ant the motion and dismiss t he interloc utory appea l, and, as re quested by appellant, we note in our Court rec ords that the City of Austin will rema in as the cross-appellant in cause number 03-16-00839- CV. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and G oodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Apr il 7, 2017
#### Alan Rosenfeld, Appellant, v Community School District #28 et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 888]

In an application, in effect, to vacate an arbitration award, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 4, 2004, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue his application.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion was, in effect, one for leave to reargue. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument *(see Pacella v Whiteman Osterman & Hanna,*14 AD3d 545 [2005]; *Amsler v Verrilli,*203 AD2d 403 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BPZ Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EdwardG. Caminos, as Vice President – Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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.
| */s/ Edward G. Caminos*                                    |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward G. Caminos                                          |
| Vice President – Finance and Chief Accounting Officer |
| November 16, 2006                                          |

 

1

----
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, May 2-6, 200Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,333,963 44,142 71,171 81,756 109,936 237,1Number of loans 23,081 11,595 4,860 2,422 1,622 1,5Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.10 10.32 11.23 16.72 15.31 24.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 3.85 2.13 2.70 4.92 3.78 4.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.41 3.15 3.15 3.20 3.23 3.

Weighted average interest rate4 6.41 7.50 7.28 7.06 6.63 6.7 Standard error5 .16 .14 .15 .12 .11 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.08 8.25 8.00 7.75 7.25 7. 25th percentile 5.86 6.75 6.51 6.28 5.90 6.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.37 7.25 7.33 6.97 6.63 6. Other livestock 6.43 7.80 6.92 7.31 6.25 6. Other current operating expenses7 6.58 7.57 7.38 7.12 6.59 6.

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.77 7.21 7.14 7.10 6.92 7. Farm real estate 6.77 7.44 7.07 6.40 6.96 6. Other8 6.05 7.11 6.89 6.87 6.59 6.7

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 89.75 82.85 79.95 74.38 80.26 82. Under commitment 81.68 88.59 88.44 80.68 82.60 80.4 Callable 22.31 32.18 35.04 38.50 28.08 29. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.25 4.11 7.35 10.15 12.58 9. Other livestock 3.77 3.12 3.77 6.58 6.97 6. Other current operating expenses7 32.00 76.54 70.14 52.80 45.19 37. Farm machinery and equipment 14.63 5.99 4.85 11.82 12.57 18. Farm real estate 5.96 1.21 2.22 3.05 5.06 5.4 Other8 34.39 9.03 11.67 15.61 17.62 22.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 8.22 2.42 3.84 6.28 8.57 10. Other 81.39 88.74 90.16 86.31 87.40 85. Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1608 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1608

 To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit human cloning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit human cloning.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) Genetic science, including cloning technology and stem 
        cell research, holds great promise for medical breakthroughs, 
        including cures and treatments for diseases.
            (2) Scientists should be encouraged to use cloning 
        technologies with plants and animals in order to discover 
        agricultural benefits for mankind.
            (3) Scientists should continue to pursue research that uses 
        cloning technologies to clone tissues, molecules, cells, and 
        DNA.
            (4) However, while the possibilities of scientific 
        experimentation normally are beneficial and limitless, there 
        are times when society--through the governmental process--can 
        and should place limits on scientific experimentation. Such is 
        the case with human cloning.
            (5) Human cloning raises serious moral, ethical, societal, 
        and safety concerns that necessitate a legislative ban.

SEC. 3. HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITED.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 89 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 1822. Human cloning
    ``(a) In General.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
commerce, knowingly replaces the nucleus of an oocyte with the nucleus 
of a human somatic cell shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
not more than 2 years, or both.
    ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if, prior to 
replacement of the nucleus of the oocyte, the nucleus of the human 
somatic cell has been modified so that the cell cannot develop to 
completion.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `somatic cell' means any cell other than a 
        sperm or oocyte; and
            ``(2) the term `oocyte' means an egg cell.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 89 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``Sec. 1822. Human cloning''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2  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 on Form 10-K of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wm. Barrett Wellman, 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; 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.  Date: November 17, 2023By/s/Wm. Barrett WellmanName:Wm. Barrett WellmanTitle:Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              24
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      15067
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 30591
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   47091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           836310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      565020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     47091
<SALES>                                          53477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 53477
<CGS>                                            71711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    71711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                712212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (730466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (730466)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32





AMASYS CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge 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.








November 5, 2010/s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President, Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer