alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21253 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ONE (1) ROLEX WATCH, Serial #A328055,

Defendant,

SIKAN ESSIEN, Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-105

-------------------- June 18, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sikan Essien appeals the default judgment entered in favor of

the Government in this 18 U.S.C. § 981 civil forfeiture proceeding

against One Rolex Watch, serial #A328055. Essien argues that the

search of his residence and the seizure of the Rolex watch violated

his Fourth Amendment rights; the district court e rred in holding

that he was collaterally estopped from challenging the seizure ofNo. 01-21253

-2-

the watch because he pleaded guilty to four counts of possession of

counterfeit checks; the Government was required to file a

forfeiture action within 90 days after a claim was filed for the

return of the seized property; and the Government did not present

any evidence showing that the watch was purchased with proceeds

derived from a federal crime. Because this forfeiture proceeding

commenced on August 22, 2000, prior to the August 23, 2000,

effective date of the Civil Asset Forfeitur e Reform Act (CAFRA),

CAFRA is inapplicable to this case. S ee Pub. L. No. 106-185 § 21,

114 Stat. 202. Essien did not file a verified claim as required by

R ule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and

Maritime Claims. Therefore, the district court did not err in

entering a default judgment in favor of the Government. S ee 18

U.S.C. § 981(b)(2); United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup

, 959

F.2d 37, 42 n.6 ( 5th Cir. 1992); U nited States v. $38,570 United

States Currency , 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09 - 4271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. RAHEEN ROBINSON ,

Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis trict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:96

- cr - 00085

- REP

- 2 )

Submitted : February 16, 2010 Decided: March 1 , 2010

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Raheen Robinson appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Robinson’s counsel filed a brief purs uant
to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence, which is above the policy statement range but within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable. Robinson was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file one.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy statement range of four to ten months and the statut ory sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainl y unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 439

- 40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard).

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the distric t court’s judgmen t . This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of3

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petitio n would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Robinson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
        32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BLUEGATE CORPORATION PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C.
        63.
 
 I,
        Charles E. Leibold, the Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation,
        hereby
        certify that Bluegate Corporation's periodic report on Form 10-QSB, for the
        period ending September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
        information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
        in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
        of
        Bluegate Corporation.
 
 
 Date:
                  November 6, 2007
              /s/
              Charles E. LeiboldCharles E. Leibold,Chief
                  Financial Officer andPrincipal
                  Accounting Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7723** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

PATRICK PRINCE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. G. Ross Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:10

- cr
- 00423

- GRA

- 7 )

Submitted : December 13 , 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Patrick Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Prince appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by th e
district court. United States v. Prince , No. 6:10

- cr
- 00423

- GRA

7 (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2012). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Elbert HENSLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 17, 1972.

*339Baxter Bledsoe, Jr., Allen & Bledsoe, London, Roy W. House, Manchester, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Carl Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

PALMORE, Justice.

This appeal is from an order denying a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. RCr 10.02, 10.06.

After two previous trials had culminated in hung juries the appellant on his third trial was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to this court. See Hensley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 474 S.W.2d 888 (1971).

Billy Rowland Phillips was a vital witness against the appellant. He testified that the appellant was the only person shooting when the decedent was killed. After the conviction was affirmed by this court the appellant was able to get an affidavit from Phillips stating that although his testimony had been given in good faith and in the belief that it was true, the affi-ant was intoxicated at the time of the killing, and “that after having been refreshed he stated that others were shooting at the time the decedent .... fell and that he does not know who shot the decedent, but now believes that the defendant . did not shoot him. Being fearful that defendant was wrongfully convicted he makes this statement to clear his own conscience for whatever it is worth.”

The appellant also filed his own affidavit stating that he was led to obtain the affidavit of Phillips through hearing from other persons that Phillips was making statements inconsistent with the testimony he had given at the trials.

Affidavits in which witnesses recant their testimony are quite naturally regarded with great distrust and usually given very little weight. See Thacker v. Commonwealth, Ky., 453 S.W.2d 566 (1970). We find nothing in this instance to justify overturning the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
#### William F. HOWARD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 9573.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

July 10, 1974.

Philip M. Moomaw, Dan L. Birdsong, Rolla, for movant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O’Neal, Bill Arnet, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied William Floyd Howard’s motion to vacate consecutive sentences imposed February 25, 1971, on his guilty pleas to two felony charges.

*207Since the submission of this case on appeal the Attorney General has filed with our Clerk official documents attesting to the fact that both sentences have been completed and that appellant was released from custody under the sentences on October 26, 1973.

By reason of appellant’s unconditional release from custody under the sentences sought to be vacated, relief under Rule 27.-26, V.A.M.R., is not available. Bibbs v. State, 476 S.W.2d 590 (Mo.1972); Scroggins v. State, 499 S.W.2d 818 (Mo.App.1973). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 13.1
   906 Certification
  Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F Street, N.E.
 Washington, D.C. 20549
  Ladies and Gentlemen:
  The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  Lai-Juh (L.J.) Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of AU Optronics Corp., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AU Optronics Corp.
  Date: May 11, 2010
  By:
/s/  LAI-JUH (L.J.) CHENName:
Lai-Juh (L.J.) ChenTitle:
Chief Executive 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 AU Optronics Corp.
and will be retained by AU Optronics Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRED REED.

September 5, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,422
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                31,732
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,785
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        121,777
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,924
<DEPOSITS>                                     179,873
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,511
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                701
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 207,924
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,069
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,022
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   604
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,695
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,849
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,934
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,761
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      195
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    982
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         631
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,822
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    44
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,473
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      220
<RECOVERIES>                                        66
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,514
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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 on Form 10-Q of Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties/3, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 Partnership.

 

 
|   |      /s/Steven D. Cordes  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Steven D. Cordes                             |
|   | Date: August 13, 2009                              |
|   |                                               |
|   |      /s/Stephen B. Waters |
|   | Name: Stephen B. Waters                            |
|   | Date: August 13, 2009                              |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1997
<CASH>                                             733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                       126
<INVENTORY>                                     22,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,057
<PP&E>                                          75,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,754
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,634
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,174
<SALES>                                         26,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,489
<CGS>                                           15,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,520
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,855
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XY42


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Public 
Meeting

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Crab 
Plan Team (CPT).

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

SUMMARY:  The CPT will meet September 13-16, 2010, at the Alaska 
Fishery Science Center. The agenda of these meetings are discussed in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

DATES: The meetings will be held September 13-16, 2010; 9 a.m. 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg 
4, Seattle, WA.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Stram, at 907-271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPT will discuss: results of the 2010 
survey; snow crab spatial model and management strategy evaluation 
projects; discuss progress of handling mortality studies; review the 
final stock assessment and fishery evaluation report; review Bristol 
Bay red king crab CIE report, review and recommend approaches for 
Tanner crab model, review and recommend approaches for Pribilof Islands 
blue king crab and red king crab models, receive an update on the 
Aleutian Islands golden king crab model; review the ACL analysis and 
recommend a preferred approach; review the snow crab rebuilding 
analysis and recommend a preferred approach; review Pribilof Islands 
blue king crab rebuilding plan; review Ecosystem Considerations 
chapter; and receive presentations on the Economic SAFE and aspects of 
the crab rationalization program.
    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be 
posted at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at 
least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
William D. Chappell,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21236 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 131784 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 

### (49) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131784 COA: 260065 Genesee CC: 04-014477-FC TROY GRANT HALSTEAD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court's January 29, 2007, order is considered, and it is DENIED , because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0319 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.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTONIO JAMES.

November 12, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.6



                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Aviation Group, Inc.
Dallas, TX 75201

We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Registration Statement of our report
dated March 31, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Global Leisure Travel, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and
1997.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP
Seattle, Washington
June 28, 2000