alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Zahari Todor JOVCEV, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents.

No. 00-1675.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Zaharí Todor Jovcev, a citizen of Bulgaria, was granted lawful permanent resident status, but the Government initiated deportation proceedings after his state-court conviction for possession of cocaine. An immigration judge found Jovcev de-portable and ineligible for asylum or with*598holding of deportation based on his alleged past persecution and fear of future persecution due to his anticommunist political opinion and Eastern Orthodox religion. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Jovcev’s appeal, holding Jovcev is ineligible for asylum because he lacks an objective fear of future persecution. Because Jovcev could not establish the burden of proof required for asylum, he did not satisfy the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of deportation. In his petition for review, Jovcev argues the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record, we conclude Jovcev failed to show a reasonable fact finder would be required to find he had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Bulgaria. Even if Jovcev had been persecuted in Bulgaria before coming to the United States, the Government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence of changed conditions in the country, including a marked improvement in human rights and the overthrow of the communist dictatorship in 1989. We decline to review Jovcev’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim at this time, because he has not yet exhausted administrative remedies. Having carefully considered all of Jovcev’s arguments, we deny his petition for review. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
#### Billy Ray CHANCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-3489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 2011.

Billy Ray Chance, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By motion mailed from his place of confinement on June 6, 2011, Billy Ray Chance seeks an enlargement of time to file a petition asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal. We have treated the motion as a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for purposes of exercising our jurisdiction in the matter.

Mandate in petitioner’s direct appeal issued on May 26, 2009. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d)(5) provides that with one exception not implicated here, a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel shall not be filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence becomes final on direct review. Thus, petitioner’s last day for timely raising a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was May 26, 2011.

In the analogous context of motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which also are subject to a two-year time limitation, a court may extend the time for filing a motion under that rule upon a showing of good cause if the request for an extension is made before the expiration of the two-year period specified in rule 3.850. *See State v. Boyd,*846 So.2d 458 (Fla.2003). Assuming for present purposes that an appellate court can likewise extend the time for filing a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we conclude that petitioner has nonetheless failed to demonstrate an entitlement to that relief. Petitioner’s motion was filed after expiration of the time for filing of a petition asserting that appellate counsel was ineffective, and more to the point, we conclude that petitioner has failed to establish good cause to extend the time, even if his request had been timely made.

Accordingly, petitioner’s request for an enlargement of time is denied, and to the extent his motion has been treated as a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we conclude that it is procedurally barred by rule 9.141(d)(5), and deny it as such.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 F-16 crash in Bavaria: Public report expected within 90 daysPublished Aug. 13, 2015
                        
                        By 52nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) --**
                The investigation into the Aug. 11 F-16C Fighting Falcon crash near Engelmannreuth in the county of Bayreuth, Germany, is currently ongoing."The purpose of this investigation is to determine what caused the incident so we can take steps in the future to prevent a similar outcome," said Col. Steve Horton, the 52nd Fighter Wing vice commander. "We are not rushing to judgment about the cause. The investigation will take time and will be thorough." Two boards will meet: the Safety Investigation Board and the Accident Investigation Board. The SIB consists of qualified personnel who assess the impact on the aircraft system across the Air Force -- in this case, the F-16. The SIB's goal is to prevent future mishaps Air Force-wide and determine what, if any, internal processes need to be changed. The AIB will focus on the local impact and determining the actual cause of the incident. Both boards are usually led by a senior pilot and involve looking at every piece of evidence, including photos of the scene, maintenance records, testimony from relevant personnel and aircraft debris. The AIB results in a publically releasable report, which is usually completed in 60-90 days.The SIB takes roughly 30 days; however, half of their final report is not releasable to the public. The other half is passed on to the AIB, which takes approximately 60-90 days to complete its report. These results are released to the public."Given the trust that the public places in our Air Force and our wing, we strive to be as transparent as possible," Horton said.The aircraft departed from Spangdahlem Air Base for a training flight near U.S. Army Garrison Bavaria in Grafenwoehr, Bavaria, Germany. The pilot jettisoned fuel tanks as part of established emergency procedures. There were no live munitions on board.U.S. military first responders are working with German authorities to secure the crash site. A 1,000-foot cordon was established to protect the crash site and begin investigations. "We will make every effort to prevent another incident or loss of life," Horton said. "We are working with German and U.S. Army agencies to ensure a thorough and efficient investigation is conducted to determine the cause of the incident and to mitigate the chances of this happening again."The cause of the incident is currently under investigation.Germany 



USAFE 



Bavaria 



F-16 Fighting Falcon 



f-16 



Spangdahlem AB Related Links
        F-16 crashes in Bavaria
EXHIBIT 10.602

Amendment No.2 to Licensing Agreement with
                                   World Channel, Inc.



Amendment No.2

to

Licensing Agreement



This Amendment No.2 to the Licensing Agreement that was signed between
the parties on December 27, 2000, is executed on March 28, 2001,



Between 		American Champion Media, Inc. (The Licensor)

22320 Foothill Blvd., Suite 260

Hayward, CA 94541

And			World Channel Inc. (The Licensee)

131 So. Maple Ave., Suite 6

So. San Francisco, CA 94080



WHEREBY IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED as follows:



Under Clause 2.:



That the grant of license and rights by the Licensor to the Licensee
according to the Licensing Agreement shall not include projects in the form of
motion pictures and the resulting video products of such motion
pictures.

License Period: shall be deleted and be replaced with following -

Five (5) years commencing on date of delivery of materials. Licensee has the
option to renew the Licensing Agreement for another five (5) year term at the
same terms and conditions as specified in the Licensing Agreement.

All other clauses and terms shall remain unchanged.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 2
to the Agreement as of the day and year first above written by affixing their
signatures of their proper signing officers duly authorized on that behalf.



|For and on behalf of
American Champion Media, Inc.              | For and on behalf of
World Channel Inc.
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|By: /s/ Anthony K. Chan
Anthony K. Chan
Chief Executive Officer | By: /s/ Alan Mok
Alan Mok
President    

---
Order entered November 13, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00108
- CV
UNITED SERVICES PROF ESSIONAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A PYRAMID REALTY , ET AL. , Appellant s V. DAVID M. HURT, ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 10
- 04892
- I 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellees’ November 11, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellees shall file a brief by December 19, 2014 . We c aution appellees that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

                            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 American Soil Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Ken
Lew, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Carl P. Ranno                                   /s/ Ken Lew
----------------------------                        ----------------------------
Carl P. Ranno                                       Ken Lew
Chief Executive Officer and President               Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2005                                      March 30, 2005
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**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), each of the
      undersigned officers of Xvariant, Inc. (N/K/A China Bionanometer Industries
      Corporation), a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to
      such
      officer's knowledge, that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 31, 2004 (the
      "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-KSB 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
      China Bionanometer Industries Corporation and will be retained by China
      Bionanometer Industries Corporation (formerly Xvariant, Inc.) and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated:
      October 12, 2007





/s/
      Wang Wen’geng


Wang
      Wen’geng


Chief
      Executive Officer







/s/
      Xiang Qin


Xiang
      Qin


Chief
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Gordon McGilton,certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis amended annual report of Force Protection, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

(a)          All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: July 12, 2007 |
|---------------------|
| By:                 | /s/ GORDON MCGILTON |   |
|                | Gordon McGilton |
|                | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24397]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12283 and <greek-i>12284]


MISSOURI Disaster Number MO-00041

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MISSOURI 
(FEMA-1934-DR), dated 08/17/2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 06/12/2010 through 07/31/2010.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/20/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/18/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/17/2011.

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 
MISSOURI, dated 08/17/2010, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
    Primary Counties: Perry.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-24397 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MELITA INTERNATIONAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         47,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,540
<CGS>                                           18,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe three and six months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.November 1, 2006                                                                 /s/ John W. Paulson   Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4561.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

Keith Loren Kimball, Colgan & Kimball, Virginia Beach, VA, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.

Before DIANA GIBBON MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Wright appeals the district court order revoking supervised release and imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment and an additional twenty-six month term of supervised release. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment. *United States v. Johnson,*138 F.3d 115, 118-19 (4th Cir.1998); *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995).

We further find that the revocation proceedings were not invalid because the probation officer filed a petition on supervised release recommending that Wright’s supervised release be revoked. *United States v. Meja-Sanchez,*172 F.3d 1172, 1174-75 (9th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 982, 120 S.Ct. 438, 145 L.Ed.2d 343 (1999); *United States v. Davis,*151 F.3d 1304,1306 (10th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny as moot Wright’s motion to expedite the appeal. We grant Wright’s motion to submit the appeal on the briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*