alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Neil B. STAFFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-35221.

D.C. No. CV-01-01531-ALA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Neil B. Stafford, pro se, Grants Pass, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

DAG-ORP, Portland, OR, Timothy A. Sylwester, Esq., DOJ-Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for RespondentAppellee.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Neil B. Stafford, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The certificate of appealability was limited to whether the district court erred in dismissing rather than staying Stafford’s § 2254 petition pending state court proceedings.1

Because the circumstances did not require the district court to consider staying Stafford’s petition, *see Kelly v. Small,*315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir.) (recognizing that district court must consider staying mixed petition when valid claims would potentially be barred by dismissal), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 2094, 155 L.Ed.2d 1077 (2003), the district court correctly dismissed without prejudice Stafford’s § 2254 petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) — (c); *Sherwood v. Tomkins,*716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir.1983) (stating a would-be habeas petitioner must wait until his state remedies are exhausted, even if the issue to be challenged in his federal habeas petition has been decided in state courts because his state proceedings could result in a reversal on other grounds, thereby mooting the federal question); *Schnepp v. Oregon,*333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir.1964) (per curiam) (noting that state prisoner did not exhaust state remedies *840where post-conviction proceeding was pending in state court).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. To the extent that Stafford raises additional arguments, we decline to consider them because they were not certified for appeal. *See Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
#### OCCANEECHI BAND OF THE SAPONI NATION v. N.C. COMM’N OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

No. 527P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 649

Motion by defendant for temporary stay allowed 19 September 2001.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700146

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.
ZACHARY N. PROTO
Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ A ppeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Emily A. Jackson

- Hall, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommand ing Officer, 2d Battalion, 2d Marine

Regiment, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recom mendation: Lieutenant Colonel

Winston G. McMillan, USMC

. For Appellant : Captain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 8 August 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , 1 F ULTON , and E LLIN GTON , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Ju stice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court

1 Former Senior Judge Campbell took final action in this case prior to detaching from the court.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 23(i)

                               CONSENT OF AUDITORS

         We consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB of Phon-net.com, Inc., of our
Auditors' Report, dated October 4, 2000, on the consolidated balance sheets of
Phon-net.com, Inc. as of July 31, 2000 and 1999, and the consolidated statements
of operations and deficit, cash flows, and stockholders' equity for the years
ended July 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998.

Vancouver, Canada
November 13, 2000

                                     /s/ Morgan & Company
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Morgan & Company
                                     Chartered Accountants
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Telkonet Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Leimbach, Chief
Financial Officer of Telkonet, 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/
Richard J.
Leimbach


Richard
J. Leimbach


Chief
Financial Officer


March 31,
2010
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VINCENT PAUL RIZZOTTO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 19

- 300 and 4D19

- 301

[ September 26, 2019 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial

Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer

, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 432018CF000771 CFAXMX and 432018CF001341 CFAXMX

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty,

Assistant Public Defender, W est Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.

Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Kankakee Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I,
Larry D. Huffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Larry D. Huffman
-------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 6, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2017 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 546
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2017

  To designate the United States courthouse and post office building 
  located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Luis A. 
       Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2004

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse and post office building 
  located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Luis A. 
       Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LUIS A. FERRE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse and post office 
building located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Luis A. Ferre United States Courthouse 
and Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper or other record of the United States to the courthouse and post 
office building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the Luis A. Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office 
Building.

                                                       Calendar No. 546

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2017

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the United States courthouse and post office building 
  located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Luis A. 
       Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 10.6.11
 RENT REVIEW MEMORANDUM
 Premises:
    
    Watermans Park High Street BrentfordLease:
    
    A Lease dated 9 May 2000 made between Proctor &
Gamble (L&CP) Limited(1) Total Research Limited (2)
and Total Research Corporation (3) (the Lease)Current Landlord:
    
    Proctor & Gamble (L&CP) Limited (the Landlord)Current tenant:
    
    HI Europe Limited (the Tenant)Revised annual rent:
    
    Two Hundred and sixty thousand and sixty two pounds
and 50 pence (£260,662.50) (the Revised Rent)Review date:
    
    24 June 2005 (the Review Date)
  \s\ illegible
 SIGNED on behalf of the Landlord:
    
    \s\ illegibleSIGNED on behalf of the tenant:
    
    \s\ illegible
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE DAVID A. MASCIO, also

known as David Mascio, doing business

as Mascio Asset Management, LLC,

doing business as Mascio Asset

Management, Inc., doing business as

DM Capital Inc., and MONICA L.

MASCIO, also known as Monica

Mascio, doing business as DM Capital,

Inc.,

Debtors.

BAP No. CO-10-047

GRONEWOLLER AND

ASSOCIATES, INC., in its name as a

Member of MAM Capital, LLC, and

PAUL GRONEWOLLER,

Plaintiffs – Appellees –

Cross–Appellants,

Bankr. No. 03-12994

Adv. No. 03-01482

 Chapter 7

v. ORDER TRANSFERRING APPEAL

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DAVID MASCIO, DM CAPITAL,

INC., and MAM CAPITAL, LLC,

Defendants – Appellants –

Cross–Appellees.

July 16, 2010

The matter before the Court is the Election to Have Cross-Appeal Heard by

District Court (“Election”) filed by Defendant - Appellant - Cross-Appellee David

Mascio (“Cross-Appellee”). In the Election, Cross-Appellee has timely filed an

objection 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. 10-47 Docket No. 7 Filed: 07/16/2010 Page: 1 of 2
-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:

 Gregory Wright

 Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-47 Docket No. 7 Filed: 07/16/2010 Page: 2 of 2
FORM 10-Q

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

|X|  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended MARCH 31, 1997

                                       OR

|_|  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ________ to ___________

Commission file number: 0-23908


                  WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.

State or other jurisdiction of                   (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization                    Identification No.)

CALIFORNIA                                       33-0531301

WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.
3158 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE 120, COSTA MESA, CA  92626

(714) 662-5565


         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934  during  the  preceding  12 months  (or for such  shorter  period  that the
registrant was required to file such reports),  and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ____




<PAGE>


Part I.  Financial Information

Item 1.  Financial Statements

         INDEX

                  WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.
                       (A California Limited Partnership)

                               INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

                      FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997




PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

   Item 1. Financial Statements...............................................2

  

   Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
            Condition and Results of Operations...............................2



PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

    Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K..................................3

    Signatures ...............................................................4



<PAGE>






Item 1.  Financial Statements

Omitted




Item 2.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operation

Omitted










                                       -2-
<PAGE>






Part II.  Other Information

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

         None.

Item 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

1.  None.


         No reports on Form 8-K  were  filed during  the quarter ended March 31,
1997


                                       -3-
<PAGE>


         Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the  registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.

By:  WNC California Tax Credit Partners III General Partner

By:  WNC & Associates, Inc.                 General Partner


By:   /s/  John B. Lester, Jr
    ------------------------------
John B. Lester, Jr.        President

Date: May 20, 1997

By:    /s/  Theodore M. Paul
    ------------------------------
Theodore M. Paul  Vice President-Finance

Date: May 20, 1997


                                      -4-
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2054

To require that Federal forfeiture funds be used, in part, to clean up 
                     methamphetamine laboratories.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2004

Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
        referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that Federal forfeiture funds be used, in part, to clean up 
                     methamphetamine laboratories.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Emergency Meth Lab Cleanup 
Funding Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FROM TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND.

    Chapter 97 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 9703 (as added by Public Law 
        103-62) as section 9703A;
            (2) by moving section 9703 (as added by Public Law 102-393) 
        so as to appear after section 9702; and
            (3) in section 9703(a)(1), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(K)(i) Payment to the designated State, local, or 
                tribal law enforcement, environmental, or health entity 
                for experts and consultants needed to clean up any area 
                formerly used as a methamphetamine laboratory.
                    ``(ii) If a methamphetamine laboratory is located 
                on private property, not more than 90 percent of the 
                costs may be paid only if--
                            ``(I) the property owner did not have 
                        knowledge of the existence or operation of such 
                        laboratory before the law enforcement action to 
                        close it; or
                            ``(II) the property owner notifies law 
                        enforcement not later than 24 hours after 
                        discovering the existence of such 
                        laboratory.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 204 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 204

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the floor for 
  treatment as an extremely low DSH State to 3 percent in fiscal year 
                                 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2003

  Mr. Bingaman (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
 Smith, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
and Mr. Dayton) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the floor for 
  treatment as an extremely low DSH State to 3 percent in fiscal year 
                                 2003.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Safety Net Improvement Act 
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN FLOOR FOR TREATMENT AS AN EXTREMELY LOW DSH STATE 
              TO 3 PERCENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2003.

    (a) Increase in DSH Floor.--Section 1923(f)(5) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``fiscal 
        year 2001'';
            (2) by striking ``August 31, 2000'' and inserting ``August 
        31, 2002'';
            (3) by striking ``1 percent'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``3 percent''; and
            (4) by striking ``fiscal year 2001'' and inserting ``fiscal 
        year 2003''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect as if enacted on October 1, 2002, and apply to DSH allotments 
under title XIX of the Social Security Act for fiscal year 2003 and 
each fiscal year thereafter.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

423 

KA 08-01012 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VICTOR E. SANTIAGO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R.

Schwartz, A.J.), rendered February 7, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree

and possession of burglar’s tools. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25

[2]) and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 140.35), defendant contends

that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the victim’s showup

identification of him. Defendant contended following the suppression

hearing that the showup procedure was “inherently suggestive” because

the victim was “a young man who was shown no one else moments after an

event.” Thus, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present

contentions that the showup procedure was unreasonable under the

circumstances, that it was unduly suggestive because the 13-year-old

identifying victim observed defendant exiting a police car in

handcuffs, and defendant was in the presence of a police officer

during the showup procedure (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Morgan, 302

AD2d 983, 984, lv denied 99 NY2d 631). In any event, we conclude that

defendant’s present contentions lack merit. The showup procedure was

reasonable under the circumstances because it was conducted in

“geographic and temporal proximity to the crime” (People v Brisco, 99

NY2d 596, 597; see People v Kirkland, 49 AD3d 1260, 1260-1261, lv

denied 10 NY3d 958, 961, cert denied ___ US ___, 129 S Ct 1331; People

v Davis, 48 AD3d 1120, 1122, lv denied 10 NY3d 957). Further, the

showup procedure was not rendered unduly suggestive by the victim’s

observation of defendant exiting a police car in handcuffs or by the

fact that defendant was in the presence of a police officer during the

procedure (see Davis, 48 AD3d at 1122; see also People v Grant, 77
-2- 423 

KA 08-01012 

AD3d 558). Finally, it cannot be said that the identifying victim’s

young age rendered the showup procedure unduly suggestive (see

generally People v Smith, 236 AD2d 639, 640, lv denied 90 NY2d 863).

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court