alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanuel HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-4132.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.

Decided Sept. 12, 2003.

Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Emanuel Harris pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him to fifty-two months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $1500 fine and a $100 special assessment. Harris appeals his sentence. His counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Harris’ counsel raises as a potential issue the district court’s application of a two-level increase under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2K2.1(b)(l)(A) (2002), based upon the finding that the offense involved five firearms. Counsel asserts that Harris should have been held accountable only for the two firearms charged in the superseding indictment and not the three additional firearms seized from his home. We disagree. “Enhancements under Section 2K2.1(b) consistently reference the term ‘offense,’ not merely ‘offense of conviction.’ ” *United States v. Bostic,*168 F.3d 718, 724 (4th Cir.1999). The district court properly determined Harris’ offense level by including relevant *295conduct. *See id.;*USSG § 1B1.1, comment. (n.l(k)). We therefore find that the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement. *United States v. Garnett,*243 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir.2001) (stating standard of review).

As required by *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Harris’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 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 the client. We 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.*
#### Fidelis Atabong NKONG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1082.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2003.

Decided Aug. 28, 2003.

Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, Noto & Oswald, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Fidelis Atabong Nkong, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his waiver application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (2000). This section provides that the Attorney General, in his discretion, may remove the conditional basis placed upon an alien’s permanent resident status (and waive the requirement that the alien and his citizen spouse jointly file a petition for removal of the conditional basis) upon a showing that the alien’s marriage was entered into in good faith. Because we find that the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that Nkong did not enter into his marriage in good faith, we deny the petition for review. *See Nyonzele v. INS,*83 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir.1996); *Matter of Laureano,*19 I. & N. Dec. 1, 2-3, 1983 WL 29913 (BIA 1983). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*262quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Donald W. Jewell, Chief Executive Officer ofSport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)            Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)            Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal 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 (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)            Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; 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:  February 12, 2007
| /s/ DONALD W. JEWELL             |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Donald W. Jewell                 |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer         |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)* |   |

####  

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM06-16-011]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

October 28, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 25, 2010, the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), submitted a compliance filing in 
response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration and Scheduling 
Technical Conference, issued on May 13, 2010.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration and 
Scheduling Technical Conference, 131 FERC ]61,136 (May 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecaaa9beafa38280858289bf999c9c839e98ac8a899e8fc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27793 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN E. BURGESS,

Plaintiff

- counter

- claim

defendant

- Appellant,

v.

DENNIS MINENI,

Defendant

- counter

- claimant

plaintiff

- Appellee,

UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Counter

- defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 16770

D.C. No. 1: 15

- cv

- 00487

- SKO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted February 14, 2017 ***

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for de cision

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

# FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16770

John E. Burgess appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

for the United States in his breach of contract action against Mineni

. We have

jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Burgess fails to address how the district court erred in

granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’ r

,

848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se

litigant deemed abandoned); see also Acosta

- Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144

(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’ s opening

brief are waived)

.

We do not consider arguments a nd allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WORLDTEX,
INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    8,435
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            38,708
<ALLOWANCES>                              2,605
<INVENTORY>                              37,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         87,819
<PP&E>                                  121,204
<DEPRECIATION>                           37,059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          201,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    36,762
<BONDS>                                  66,428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    147
<OTHER-SE>                               81,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            201,600
<SALES>                                 148,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        148,350
<CGS>                                   122,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           122,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          10,235
<INCOME-TAX>                              3,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       6,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              6,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .46
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Dune Energy, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 30, 2006                          /s/ Alan Gaines
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Alan Gaines,
                                               Chief Executive Officer

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.
THE MEETING WILL BE VIRTUAL. SEE DETAILS BELOW.

9:00 to 9:10 AM Welcome and Announcements

9:10 to 9:30 AM What's New in Aeronautics

9:30 to 10:45 AM Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities 

(AETC) Strategic Plan

10:45 AM to 12:00 PM Quesst (Low Boom Flight Demonstrator) Mission 

Status 

12:00 to 1:00 PM Lunch (non-public)

1:00 - 2:20 PM X-57 Progress and Outlook

2:20 to 2:35 PM Break

2:35 to 4:05 PM Hypersonics Portfolio and Activities

4:05 to 4:10 PM Public Comment Period

4:10 to 4:40 PM Committee Deliberations

4:40 to 5:00 PM Work Plan and Schedule Review

5:00 PM Adjourn

JOIN TEAMS MEETING Click here to join the meeting

JOIN BY PHONE

US Toll: +1 256-715-9946,,368562680# 

Passcode: 368 562 680# 

Wednesday, November 30 (Sessions are public except as noted)

NAC Aeronautics Committee Public Agenda (FINAL)

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

NASA Headquarters
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00088-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF Elaine Eisele ADAMS

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14997

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE 

VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant Duane Adams.

SIGNED June 2, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
#### Jack Neil *v.*Commonwealth.

New Trial — Preponderance of Evidence Against Verdict.

Where the preponderance of the evidence is decidedly against a verdict, it should he set aside and a new trial granted.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

*'Gaither and*Thompson> *for appellant.*

Harlan, *for appellee.*

January 26, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Jubge Harbin :

We do not perceive in the record any error in giving or withholding instructions for which we would feel authorized to reverse-the judgment.

But as it appears to us by a decided preponderance of the eyidence that the selling and disposing of liquors by the appellant complained of occurred in a room of the house of Mrs. Patty kept by her under a license as a tavern, authorizing her to sell liquorsthereih, and that said room, which was used as a barroom, was under and subject to her control as part of her tavern-house in which the appellant sold the liquors as her agent and barkeeper-under a contract to derive his compensation by retaining part of' the proceeds of the sale of liquors so made, it seems to us the verdict of the jury was not authorized by the evidence, and this being one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, the verdict should' have been set aside and a new trial granted.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded! for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,



In connection with the annual report on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 Newtek as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Barry SloaneBarry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian A. WassermanBrian A. Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer




March 31, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garrett Thornburg, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/    GARRETT THORNBURG
|Garrett Thornburg       
|Chief Executive Officer 
|May 6, 2005
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED
                                   ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
BioSyntech,  Inc. on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on April 3, 2001, pertaining to the BioSyntech, Inc. and Bio Syntech Canada Inc.
Stock Option Incentive Plans, of our report dated May 24, 2002,  except for note
18 as to which  the date is June 26,  2002,  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements of BioSyntech,  Inc.  included in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB), for the year ended March 31, 2003.

Montreal, Canada                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
July 11, 2003                                             Chartered Accountants
```
#### RENE GRINAN AND CARIDAD GRINAN v. ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, ET AL.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.; (the “Partnership”) for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant
to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President
and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify
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 Partnership.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/ WILFRED
    N. COOPER JR.                                   | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.                                          | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.



Date: August 14, 2012