alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary GOSS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS; University of Arkansas, of the State of Arkansas; University of Arkansas Cooperative Services; and University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, Appellees.

No. 97-3646.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 1998.

Decided Jan. 6, 1999.

*431D. Eric Sowers, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.

Jeffery A. Bell, Little Rock, AR, argued (Melissa K. Rust, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BEAM, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Gary Goss brought this action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, *see*29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against the State of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, and the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground, *inter alia,*that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and Mr. Goss countered that Congress had specifically made the several states subject to suit for age discrimination in 29 U.S.C. § 630(b)(2). The district court, relying on its previous decision in *Hawn v. Sugg,*No. LR-C-95-831 (E.D.Ark. 1997), *rev’d,*No. 97-2613, 1998 WL 813823 (8th Cir.1998) *(per curiam),*held that the abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity contained in the statute was a constitutional exercise of congressional authority, and thus denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We recently ruled in *Humenansky v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,*152 F.3d 822, 828 (8th Cir.1998), that § 630(b)(2) does not in fact abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity and, moreover, that even if it purported to, it could not have been enacted pursuant to the power of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and thus would have been unconstitutional. *Humenansky*is on all fours with this ease and disposes of it entirely.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for such further proceedings, if any, as the district court finds are not inconsistent with this opinion.
CHERRY, J., concurring: 

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. 

U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree 

that appellant lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners 

association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR 

Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the 

disposition of this appeal. 

On 

Cherry 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Joseph T. Bonaventure, Senior Judge 

David J. Merrill, P.C. 

David A. Rosenberg 

Howard Kim & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 444V4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1402

In re: JERMAINE JERRELL SIMS, a/k/a Justice, a/k/a Jus,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:98-cr-00045-CMH-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Jerrell Sims, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Jerrell Sims petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing 

the district court, United States Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) to acknowledge allegedly exculpatory evidence Sims discovered after 

his conviction and to correct errors that led to his 1998 indictment for aiding and abetting 

bank robbery and related offenses. Sims also alleges that a witness gave false testimony 

during his trial. We conclude that Sims is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances where the petitioner “ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief he 

desires.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

The relief sought by Sims is not available by way of mandamus. To the extent 

Sims seeks reversal of his conviction, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal or collateral review. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2007); Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LYNDA MUNIZ AND JOSE MUNIZ.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification- denied. .(See 150 *N. J. Super.*436)
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A forthe period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F. Swanton, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                 TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Norman F. Swanton |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Norman F. Swanton     |

#### ***Chairmanof the Board***

*And Chief Executive Officer*

 

October 5, 2007

 

12

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Stonepath
Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: February 9, 2005                       By: /s/ Thomas L. Scully
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Thomas L. Scully
                                             Chief Financial Officer,
                                             Vice President and Controller

     This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Stonepath Group, Inc. and will be retained by Stonepath Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: June 9, 2011


/s/ Clyde B. AndersonClyde B. AndersonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 6, 2015

No. 04-15-00390-CR

Rebecca Fayelayne NELSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 5543

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. Time is extended to 

December 2, 2015. No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JINGHONG LUAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70064

Agency No. A098-440-485

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jinghong Luan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

SEP 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70064

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility

findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the

petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007)

(adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence based on

discrepancies between petitioner’s testimony and declaration). In the absence of

credible testimony, Luan failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of

removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Luan’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and Luan does not point to any other evidence that

shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at

1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# Sitemap

## November 13, 2021

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2021
- 11
- November 13, 2021

            - NASA Deputy Administrator Among US Astronaut Hall of Fame Inductees
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Presented to

In recognition of your 

“Court of Honor”

on earning the rank of

Eagle Scout

Your dedication and commitment

to the ideals that the 

Boy Scouts of America represent

will serve you well as you

help lead the next

generations of explorers.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of CryptoLogic Inc. (the Company) on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis N. Rose,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 19,2004
    
    /s/ LEWIS N. ROSELewis N.RoseChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of CryptoLogic Inc. (the Company) on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Ryan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date:  May 19, 2004
    
    /s/ JAMES A. RYANJames A. RyanChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1904 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                      Calendar No.  455
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1904

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami 
   Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2003

     Mr. Graham of Florida (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             March 10, 2004

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami 
   Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami Avenue in 
Miami, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Wilkie D. 
Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Wilkie D. 
Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

                                                       Calendar No. 455

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1904

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 400 North Miami 
   Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 10, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
*

After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 17, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN L. TRAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-1144

v. (D. Colorado)

MICHAEL MURPHY; MONROE

MCKAY; JOHN PORFILIO; NEIL

GORSUCH, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00240-ZLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Bryan L. Travis appeals the dismissal of his claims against four members of

this Court based on their rulings against him. As explained by the district court,

the defendants are immune from such liability. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502

U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). We AFFIRM the judgment below and DENY Mr. Travis’s 

Appellate Case: 10-1144 Document: 01018442627 Date Filed: 06/17/2010 Page: 1
-2-

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-1144 Document: 01018442627 Date Filed: 06/17/2010 Page: 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

————————————————— 

IN RE CHARLES COULSON WALDO 

and ETHANNE S. WALDO, 

 Debtors. 

__________________________________ 

CHARLES COULSON WALDO and 

ETHANNE S. WALDO, 

 Appellants. 

 v. 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST COMPANY, 

 Appellee. 

BAP No. UT-10-005 

Bankr. No. 08-23583 

Chapter 13 

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

APPEAL 

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

February 8, 2010 

————————————————— 

 The matter before the Court is the Document (“Election”) filed by Bank of New 

York Mellon Trust Company (“Appellee”). In the Election, Appellee has timely filed an 

objection to the disposition of this matter by this Court. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e), it is HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court. 

BAP Appeal No. 10-5 Docket No. 14 Filed: 02/08/2010 Page: 1 of 2
(2) Any deadlines, notices of deficiency, or orders to show cause 

previously set by this Court are VACATED. 

(3) This Court’s record is transmitted to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court. 

 For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court 

 By: 

 

 Stephanie Freeman 

Panel Attorney 

2

BAP Appeal No. 10-5 Docket No. 14 Filed: 02/08/2010 Page: 2 of 2
June 20, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EDWARD PAUL CELESTINE, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00248-CV V.

COURTYARD OF THREE FOUNTAINS ASSOCIATION AND KRJ 

MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed 

by the court below on February 28, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Jean-Pierre Sommadossi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Idenix Pharmaceuticals,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal
NAC Aeronautics Committee Internal Agenda
�

Thursday, December 4, 2014
�

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
�

(NASA Ames Conference Center, Building 3)
�

Thursday, December 4 (Sessions are public except as noted)
�

9:00 am to 9:15 am Welcome and announcements
�

9:15 am to 10:00 am Ames Research Center Overview/Ames 

Aeronautics Workforce Status 

10:00 am to 11:30 am UAS Air Traffic Management
�

11:30 am to 12:00 pm FAA UAS Center of Excellence Overview
�

12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch (non-public)
�

1:00 pm to 2:00 pm Verification and Validation Research Update
�

2:00 pm to 3:00 pm Big Questions and SIP discussion
�

3:00 pm to 3:30 pm Committee Deliberations
�

3:30 pm to 3:45 pm Public Comment Period
�