alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 5/14/14 P. v. Cosby CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts a nd parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. KEITH COSBY, Defendant and Appellant. D064512

(Super. Ct. No. CR84617)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of San Diego County, Howard H. Shore, Judge. Affirmed. Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Keith Cosby was convicted in 1988 of numerous counts, including two counts of murder, and was se ntenced to 33 years to life consecutive to a term of life without the possibility of parole. In 2013, the court denied a motion by the2 prosecution seeking an orde r imposing a victim restituti on order in favor of the victim's wife under Penal Code secti on 1202.4, subdivision (f), but did impose a restitution fine of $200 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdiv ision (b). Cosby timely appealed the order imposing a restitution fine.
FACTS In 2013, the wife of one of the murder victims sent a letter to the prosecutor seeking a restitution payment of $12,516.25. The prosec ution then filed a motion seeking victim restitution in the amount of $10,000. Th e court ordered a restitution fine of $200 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has f iled a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no ar gument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record fo r error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Couns el identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the tria l court lacked jurisdiction to impose a restitution fine. We granted Cosby permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A re view of the record pursuant to People v. Wende,

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Cosby has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J. WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                           4,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                       251
<INVENTORY>                                      6,644
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,211
<PP&E>                                           6,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,601)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         20,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,641
<CGS>                                           13,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,962)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.27)


</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 1, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS BEAUCHAINE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES M. WINDER, Sheriff;

ROLLIN COOK, Chief; MIKE

THOMAS, Lieutenant; TRISHA

HUGHES, Lieutenant; MARY JANE

FISCH, Dietician; and C FLORENCE,

Dietician, individually and in their

official capacities, 

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-4029

(D.C. No. 2:07-CV-00657-TS)

(D. of Utah)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal

was filed out-of-time. 

Judgment was entered on December 11, 2009, and the notice of appeal,

with a certificate of service dated January 22, 2010, was filed on January 27.

In a civil case, in which the United States is not a party, a notice of appeal

must be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (a

notice of appeal in a civil matter must be filed within 30 days of entry of

Appellate Case: 10-4029 Document: 01018359090 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Page: 1 
2

judgment unless the United States is a party); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (same).

Because a timely notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and

jurisdictional, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209, 213 (2007), this appeal is

DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 10-4029 Document: 01018359090 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Page: 2
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: May 14, 2003



                                            BY: /s/ David J. Mickelson
                                                David J. Mickelson
                                                Executive Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                and Chief Operating Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27785]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7222]


Designation of Jundallah, Also Known as People's Resistance 
Movement of Iran (PMRI), Also Known as Jonbesh-i Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i 
Iran, Also Known as The Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, Also Known 
as Soldiers of God, Also Known as Fedayeen-e-Islam, Also Known as 
Former Jundallah of Iran, Also Known as Jundullah, Also Known as 
Jondullah, Also Known as Jundollah, Also Known as Jondollah, Also Known 
as Jondallah, Also Known as Army of God (God's Army), Also Known as the 
Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement (BPRM), as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Jundallah, also known as People's 
Resistance Movement of Iran (PMRI), also known as Jonbesh-i Moqavemat-
i-Mardom-i Iran, also known as The Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, 
also known as Soldiers of God, also known as Fedayeen-e-Islam, also 
known as Former Jundallah of Iran, also known as Jundullah, also known 
as Jondullah, also known as Jundollah, also known as Jondollah, also 
known as Jondallah, also known as Army of God (God's Army) and also 
known as the Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement (BPRM).
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 21, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-27785 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OCTuS, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John Belden, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS 1350), that to my 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 Company.

 

/ s /  John Belden

John Belden

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

October 30, 2002

*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of ATEL
Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 18, 2007



|                                                         |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                         |  | 
|Dean L. Cash                                             |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of General Partner |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---

Page 23 of 24
#### Sampson *v.*Hendricks.

If an issue be formed in equity by a plea to the bill and a replication to the plea, a default cannot be entered against the defendant and the bill be taken as confessed, while the issue is undisposed of.

The effect of a replication in such case is to admit the plea to be good, and to confine the inquiry to the truth of the matter in issue.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

Hendricks brought a bill in equity against *Sampson,*having for its object the collection of the purchase-money for a tract of land, and the enforcement of the vendor’s lien. Among other allegations in the bill, one was that the complainant had tendered the defendant a deed for the land, which deed was copied into the bill. The defendant pleaded in bar of the whole bill, that the complainant had not tendered him a good and sufficient deed. The complainant replied that the deed tendered by him was a good and sufficient deed. The cause was set down for-- hearing upon the bill, plea, exhibits, and the admission of the defendant that the deed copied in the bill had been tendered to him. In this state of the cause, the defendant was called, and failing to answer, a default was entered against him, and the bill was taken as confessed; whereupon the Court entered a final decree against the defendant for the sale of the land, &c.

This decree must be reversed. It was erroneous to default the defendant and take the bill as confessed, while the issue formed by the plea and replication was undisposed of.

We do not inquire whether the bill is sufficient to support a decree for the complainant; or whether if it is, the plea is a good bar. The effect of the replication was to admit the plea to be good, and to confine the inquiry to the truth of the .matter at issue. If that was with the defendant, the bill should have been dismissed, whether the plea was good or *289bad. Mitf. Pl. pp. 240, 241. — 1 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 233.— Story’s Eq. Pl. *542.*— Harris v. *Ingledew,*3 P. Will. 94.

*O. H. Smith*and *T. L. Sullivan,*for the plaintiff.

*D. Wallace,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

’The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-122885) pertaining to the Coastal Banking Company, Inc. 2000 Stock IncentivePlan of our report dated January 28, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Coastal Banking Company, Inc. and Subsidiaryincorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the yearended December 31, 2004.

 

 
| Elliott Davis, LLC           |
|------------------------------|
| /s/ Elliott Davis,  LLC |   |
| March 30, 2005          |
| Greenville, South  Carolina  |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CASEY LYNN LESLIE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 42 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32**

 

Certification Required by Rule13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annualreport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”)for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Daniel J. Rothaupt, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer and Amy Conley, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of AES NY L.L.C., the General Partner of AES Eastern Energy, L.P. (the“Issuer”), each certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

 

(1)               the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

(2)               the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Issuer.

 
|   | /s/ Daniel  J. Rothaupt                                  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Daniel J. Rothaupt  President  (chief executive officer) |   |
|   |                                                     |   |
|   | /s/ Amy  Conley                                          |   |
|   | Amy Conley  Vice President  (chief financial officer)    |   |

 

Date:  March 16, 2004

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained bythe Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROSEANN SAVEDRA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

the Social Security Administration, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-2100

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00627-LFG)

(D. of New Mexico)

ORDER

Before TACHA, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

On February 2, 2010, a United States magistrate judge, upon consent of the parties

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), entered a final judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff

appeals. We dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

“It is well-established that an appellate court acquires jurisdiction of an appeal only

upon the filing of a timely notice of appeal.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London v.

Evans, 896 F.2d 1255, 1256 (10th Cir. 1990). The sixty-day deadline under Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1)(B) for the filing of a timely notice of appeal in this civil case expired on Monday,

April 5, 2010. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 23, 2010,

which was eighteen days past the sixty-day deadline. The additional thirty-day deadline for

Appellate Case: 10-2100 Document: 01018483920 Date Filed: 08/25/2010 Page: 1 
2

seeking an extension of time in this case expired on May 5, 2010. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(5)(A). Plaintiff did not move in the district court for an extension of time, and this court

may not extend the time for filing an appeal. See Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp.

57 F.3d 941, 949 (10th Cir. 1995).

The time limit for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case is a “jurisdictional

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is

untimely.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2100 Document: 01018483920 Date Filed: 08/25/2010 Page: 2
EXHIBIT 31.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. SS.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Kinley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Auteo Media, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the  registrant's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: May 12, 2004


/s/ MICHAEL W. KINLEY
______________________
Michael W. Kinley
President and Director
A-MAZE-ING WOMEN OF STEM: SCIENCE

NASA Scientist Jie Gong studies Earth’s atmosphere. 

She uses data from satellites to understand where and when 

snow might fall. She also studies ice clouds and hail.

Want to learn about women doing amazing things in science? 

Visit https://www.nasa.gov/women-at-nasa/.