alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30916 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. KEVIN O. HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CR-267-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin O. Harrison a ppeals his co n v i c t ion for p ossession with intent to distribute heroin and crack c ocaine. He argues that the eviden c e a t t r i a l was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that he possessed drugs found in a postKatrina abandoned house. Our review is de n o v o . United States v . McElwee , 646 F.3d 328, 3 4 0 (5th C ir. 2011). In assessing sufficiency, we determine “whether, a f

t e r viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational t rier of fact could have found the essential elements of U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30916 Document: 00512251867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2013No. 12-30916

the cri m e b e y o nd a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. V irginia , 443 U .S. 307, 319 (1979). A New Orleans P olice Detective saw Harrison engage in t h r e e separate transactions in which Harrison accepted what appeared to be currency, entered

an a bandoned house, a nd returned with a small object he gave to t he buyer. The f i r st transaction was with a confidential informant, and the object was determined to be heroin. During the other two transactions, Harrison followed

a similar pattern, and the detective was able to observe him on the second floor of the abandoned house because a wall was missing. After the third transaction, Harrison was arres t e d , a n d the detective entered the abandoned house where he found heroin and crack cocaine readily v isible just through t he doorway to the second floor. In addition, the detective saw sever a l f i rearms and drugdistribution paraphernalia. In l i g h t o f the foregoing, a r ational trier of fact could have f ound beyond

a reasonable doubt that Harrison was g u i l ty as charged. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. at 319. Harrison’s contention that the jury’s verdict of acquittal on separate firearms charges suggests that there mu s t h a v e b een a reasonable doubt i s unavailing. See United States v. Parks , 68 F.3 d 860, 865 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-30916 Document: 00512251867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MALIK NOEL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 345 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, General Electric Capital
            Services Note-Backed Series 2002-5 Trust (the "Trust") and all
            reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports
            of the Trust filed in respect of periods included in the year
            covered by this annual report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
            a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered
            by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
            similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
            compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
            disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.


Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
--------------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Vice President
*

The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0635n.06

Filed: July 28, 2005

No. 04-3739

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PARKWOOD PLACE, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF BRECKSVILLE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE,Circuit Judges; REEVES, District Judge*

R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Parkwood Place, et. al., appeal

a district court order granting Defendant-Appellee City of Brecksville’s motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6). The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the enactment of two zoning ordinances

violates state and federal law because the ordinances infringe upon plaintiffs’ property rights as

established in previous litigation regarding the zoning of the same property. On appeal, Parkwood

contends that the district court erred in: (1) dismissing the state law claims under the “law-of-thecase” doctrine, (2) dismissing the federal constitutional claims because of collateral estoppel, and

(3) dismissing the takings claims because they were not yet ripe for review. 
No. 04-3739

Parkwood Place v. City of Brecksville

- 2 -

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions. For substantially the same

reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive opinion, we AFFIRM the district court’s

grant of the City of Brecksville’s motion to dismiss.
* District Judge of the Northern District of California,

sitting by designation.

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 95-30627

_______________ ROOSEVELT EFFERSON, Individually and on behalf of Roosevelt Efferson III, ANITA EFFERSON, Individually and on behalf of Roosevelt Efferson III, DIANE FARRIS, Individually and on behalf of Ramsey Farris, JOANN RICHMOND, Individually and on behalf of Antonio Richmond, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus SCHOOL BOARD OF CADDO PARISH, TERRY L. TERRIL, ROSALIE EWING, MAXINE YOUNG, AL LINDSEY, SOPHIA JONES, GLADYS K. RHINEHART, CHARLES BURLISON, Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1787)

____________________________ January 4, 1996 B efore HIGGINBOTHAM and DUHE’, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZ ER * , District Judge.
PER CURIAM: ** Plaintiffs seek to bypass the administrative process providedby the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, urging that the

relief they seek is not available within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(b) (1) (E). The district court granted the school board’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss. We affirm. Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a class of other students. The complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and other federal statutes seeking money damages and other equitable relief, together with counsel fees. Some of the plaintiffs are presently enrolled in the special education program. Attorney fees are recoverable only under IDEA. We find nothing in this record to fault the decision of the district court to dismiss the claims for failure to exhaust.
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: January 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBSAndrew F. JacobsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: January 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCHPhillip A. ReinschExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Tina Thuy Troung v. Hoa Hiep Hoang

Appellate case number: 01-22-00296-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-54609

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Tina Thuy Troung, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss, but this motion 

is not filed by counsel of record, Marivonne R. Essex, but is instead filed by Gary Michael Block, 

who claims that he is now appellant’s counsel. Block attaches an order signed by the trial court 

on April 22, 2022, granting Essex’s motion to withdraw. Block also attaches a notice of 

appearance.

Rule 6.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if an attorney is 

substituting for a withdrawing attorney, the motion to withdraw of the withdrawing attorney must 

state the substitute attorney’s name, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and State Bar 

identification number. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). Essex has not complied with this rule. 

Accordingly, the Court is unable to consider the motion to dismiss filed by Block until Essex has 

filed a motion in compliance with Rule 6.5(d). This motion shall be filed within 5 days of the date 

of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Richard Hightower_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___May 3, 2022___
Order entered March 10 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00869
- CR JOSE INEZ MARTINEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F13
- 00328
- Y



### O RDER
On November 7 , 2014, this Court ordered Sharon Hazlewood, former official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 7, to file the complete reporter’s record by December 31, 2014. When the record was not filed by J anuary 15, 2015, this Court ordered Ms. Hazlewood to file the complete record by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 2, 2015. In the more than one month that has passed since that date, Ms. Hazlewood has neither filed the record nor communicated with the Court regarding the status of the record. Accordingly, we ORDER Sharon Hazlewood, former official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 7, to file the complete reporter’s record , including all exhibits, by 4:00 p.m. on MONDAY, MARCH 23 , 2015

. We fur ther ORDER that Sharon Hazlewood not sit as a court reporter until the record is filed in this appeal.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the

Honorable Elizabeth Frizell, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Cour t No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood, court reporter ; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office ; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
812 A.2d 1106

#### JOSE SANTIAGO, PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

November 15, 2002.

Certification is granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for consideration of the appeal on the merits.
#### Druggan *v.*The Ehring Mortgage Securities Co.

(No. 25606

Decided November 13, 1935.)

*Messrs. Druggan £ Gingher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Homer Z. Bostwick*and *Mr. John E. Todd,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur,
**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 annualreport of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Daniel Lehrfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidatedfinancial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidatedresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 

Dated: April 14, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Daniel  Lehrfeld     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Daniel  Lehrfeld         |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

This certification has beenfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.3

                              ENDOREX CORPORATION

                        Second Amendment and Supplement
                           To Subscription Agreement

                                 April 6, 2000

     This Second Amendment and Supplement (this "Supplement") amends and
supplements the Subscription Agreement, as amended by the Amendment and
Supplement to Subscription Agreement, to be entered into by and among Endorex
Corporation (the "Company") and Subscribers in the Offering (as amended, the
"Subscription Agreement"). The information contained in this Supplement should
be considered together with the more detailed information included in the
Subscription Agreement and exhibits thereto, as supplemented and amended hereby.
Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Supplement shall have the
meanings given to them in the Subscription Agreement unless the context
otherwise requires.

     1.   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Subscription Agreement
and any prior amendments thereto, the price per Unit shall be $100,000, each
"Unit" shall consists of 21,164 shares of Common Stock and 5,291 Warrants. The
Per Share Common Stock Price shall be $4.725 and the exercise price per Warrant
shall be $5.91.

     2.   The first sentence of Section 3.1 of the Subscription Agreement is
hereby replaced in its entirety to provide as follows:

     "The Company shall sell to the Subscribers a number of Units which would
provide aggregate gross proceeds to the Company of at least $2,000,000 (the
"Minimum Offering Amount") but in no event shall the company sell to Subscribers
a number of Units comprised of more than 1,850,000 shares of Common Stock
(excluding the shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrants) (the "Maximum
Offering"), at a purchase price of $100,000 per Unit (the "Purchase Price")."


                                   Agreed and Accepted:


                                   By:___________________________
                                   Name:
                                   Title:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO BALDOVINOS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

PAUL COPENHAVER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 15-16537 

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00806-SKO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 8, 2017***

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Pedro Baldovinos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

 

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-16537 

Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Baldovinos challenges the finding of the disciplinary hearing officer 

(“DHO”) that he committed riot-like conduct and contends that the disciplinary 

proceedings violated his right to due process. The record reflects that Baldovinos’s 

disciplinary hearing comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the 

DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) 

(requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary 

decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due 

process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Baldovinos’s 

claim that the DHO, a Bureau of Prisons employee, lacked authority to impose 

disciplinary sanctions against him for conduct that occurred at a contract facility. 

See 28 C.F.R. § 541.10(a) (2007). Finally, we reject Baldovinos’s double jeopardy 

claims. See United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) (“the 

prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar criminal prosecution for conduct 

that has been the subject of prison disciplinary sanctions,” and loss of good 

conduct time does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes). 

We decline to consider Baldovinos’s claim, raised for the first time on 

appeal, that he is actually innocent of his 2010 criminal convictions in the Western 
 3 15-16537 

District of Texas. See Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the
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 periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) 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) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: April 24, 2009
    
    /s/ Peter A. EdisonPeter A. EdisonChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, and

SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

DISMISSAL OF SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for

Dismissal of Defendant, Salud Family Health Center, filed February 12, 2013 (ECF No.

106). The Court having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised hereby ORDERS

as follows:

The Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Salud Family Health Center is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and

costs. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to amend the caption to reflect the removal

of Defendant Salud Family Health Center.

Case 1:11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB Document 107 Filed 02/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated this 13th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

 

Case 1:11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB Document 107 Filed 02/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 Ideal Accents, Inc., a Florida corporation
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        Karim Suleman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Ideal Accents, Inc., and will be retained by Ideal Accents, Inc. and furnished
        to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
 
 
 
 */S/
        Karim Suleman_* _________________
 Karim
        Suleman, Chief Executive Officer,
 President,
        Director and Chief Financial
 Officer
 
 Date:
        March 30, 2007