alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl aintiff - Appellee,

v. LEON HENDERSON ASKEW, De fendant - Appellant. No. 19-1453 (D.C. No.1:11- CR-00184-WJM-1) (D. Colo.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER *

__________________ _______________ Before LUCERO , BACHARACH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ After a conviction on drug-and-gun charges, 1 Mr. Leon Askew unsuccessfully moved to vacate his sentence. He then filed two requests for a “ Franks hearing,” which is a hearing on the veracity of an affidavit submitted in order to obtain a warrant. United States v. Kennedy , 131 F.3d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court denied both requests, and Mr. Askew wants to appeal the sec ond denial of a Franks hearing.

* This order does not constitute bi nding precedent ex cept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasi ve value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32 .1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
1 See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(i), § 924(c)( 1)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 17, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 To appeal, Mr. Askew needs a certif icate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We can issue the certi ficate only if Mr. Askew’s appellate argument is reasona bly debatable. Laurson v. Leyba , 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). In our view, Mr. Askew fails to satis fy this standard. He argues that the district court shou ld have granted his second request for a Franks hearing. If this argument is proven, it could support vacatu r of the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But Mr. Askew has alrea dy filed a § 2255 motion and obtained a ruli ng on the merits. So any new § 2255 motion would be second or successive, and the district court would lack ju risdiction in the absence of authorization to file a second-or-successi ve § 2255 motion. In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Mr. Askew hasn’t stated any ground s for authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). So his appell ate argument isn’t reason ably debatable and we can’t issue a certificate of appealabilit y. Given the absence of a certificate of appealability, we dismiss th e appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 2

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

2 We grant leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis.
#### A. *J.*Wright's Admr. *v.*David Gillum.

Husband and Wife — Lands Purchased by Wife — Erroneous Conveyance to Husband. —

A deed from husband to wife, though technically invalid, is held good, where it is shown that the land' embraced therein was paid for by the wife out of her patrimony and the deed made to the husband through mistake. - v

Same — Creditors Suit — Lien Created by Payment by Wife.

In a suit by a creditor to subject the lands in the name of the wife, conveyed to her by her insolvent husband, it is held that the wife will have a prior lien thereon for moneys she paid for the land out of her individual means.

Same — Sales—Oppressive Costs.

A sale of the lands upon which a lien is thu3 created, to reimburse the wife, is held unjudicial where the value of the land is shown to be no more than the price paid- by the wife for which she holds a lien, and would create inconvenience and oppressiveness in its cost

APPEAL EROM TRIMBLE OIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1868.

BY

:

It seems to tbis court that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the appellant’s petition as judgment creditor of the appellee David Gi]lum, to subject a tract of 30 acres of land, which had been conveyed to him by Elizabeth Bates, and afterwards conveyed by him to his co-appellee Mary Jane Gillum, his wife.

The husband resists the asserted equity by alleging that the land was bought, at his wife’s instance for a home for herself and six children, was paid for with her own separate means and ought to have been conveyed to her by Mrs. Bates.

The wife resists more emphatically on the same grounds, alleging that her 1. sband and herself had no other sans of buying the land than a small patrimony which she then expected soon to realize from her father’s estate, and which she received to her separate use about three years-after the land was bought at $100, paid by her husband with money borrowed from one Barres in an*489ticipation of ber patrimonial fund. And tbat sbe afterwards, witb a portion of tbat fund wbicb never came to ber husband, paid to Barres tbe whole amount so loaned and its accruing interest of course; tbat Mrs. Bates conveyed tbe legal title to ber husband instead of herself through mistake, and tbat sbe paid Barres in consideration of ber husband’s conveyance _to herself. And tbe most essential of these allegations are sufficiently established by tbe testimony.

*DeHaven, for appellant.*

*Pryor*& Chambers, *for appellee.*

Now although tbe conveyance by tbe husband to bis wife is technically invalid, yet tbe contract between them and ber payment of tbe consideration may be available to rebut tbe asserted equity of tbe appellant and sbe would at least be entitled to a lien on tbe land for tbe money sbe paid for it and that, from tbe testimony,, may be presumed equal to tbe present value of tbe land, an experimental sale of wbicb for reimbursing her would be not only inconvenient but oppressive in its cost and probably altogether unavailing to tbe appellant.

A decree for such a sale would therefore have been improvident., and a reversal by this court would be more so.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WEST, a Florida corporation,

a/a/o Marielys Navarro Sanchez,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1032

[December 16, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jennifer Hilal, Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE19-374.

Michael J. Neimand of United Automobile Insurance Company, Miami, 

for appellant.

Yasmin Gilinsky of Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### MARLENE TAUFIELD v. ARNOLD TAUFIELD.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David P. Edelman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of 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 the Company.






/s/ DAVID P.
EDELMAN


David P.
Edelman


Chief
Financial Officer


Kenneth
Cole Productions, Inc.


March 12,
2009
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2567 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 731
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2567

                          [Report No. 108-372]

    To adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 23 (legislative day, June 22), 2004

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                           September 28, 2004

              Reported by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of 
                              California.

    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 ``Redwood National Park Boundary 
Adjustment Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 2(a) of the Act of Public Law 90-545 (16 U.S.C. 79b(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``(a) The area'' and 
        all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
        the following: ``(a)(1) The Redwood National Park consists of 
        the land generally depicted on the map entitled `Redwood 
        National Park, Revised Boundary', numbered 167/60502, and dated 
        February, 2003.'';
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by 
        paragraph (1)) the following:
    ``(2) The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be--
            ``(A) on file and available for public inspection in the 
        appropriate offices of the National Park Service; and
            ``(B) provided by the Secretary of the Interior to the 
        appropriate officers of Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, 
        California.''; and
            (3) in the second sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
                following:
    ``(3) The Secretary''; and
                    (B) by striking ``one hundred and six thousand 
                acres'' and inserting ``133,000 acres''.

                                                       Calendar No. 731

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2567

                          [Report No. 108-372]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Meet the NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OxscVOLZXe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/meet-the-nasa-advisory-council-aeronautics-committee\/\">Meet the NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/meet-the-nasa-advisory-council-aeronautics-committee\/embed\/#?secret=OxscVOLZXe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Meet the NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OxscVOLZXe\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nac-armstrong-x1e.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
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








I, Miguel Di Nanno, Principal Executive Officer of Pan American GoldfieldsLtd. (the "Company"), 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-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2011 (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.








Date:  March 13, 2012





/S /Miguel Di Nanno


_________________________________


Miguel Di Nanno


President
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO Section 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 For purposes of 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
Quovadx, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission)
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certifies, to the best of her
knowledge and belief, that: 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 the Registrant. /s/ Lorine R. SweeneyLorine R. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer March 17, 2004
#### STATE v. WARD

No. 158A92-7

Case below: Pitt County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, denied 16 August 2001. Motion by Attorney General to lift stay of execution allowed 16 August 2001.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.02

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PLATO Learning, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence L. Betterley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

Date: June 9, 2005             /s/ LAURENCE L. BETTERLEY
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Laurence L. Betterley
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sherr-una Booker,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00474-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Watkins, Lourie, Roll, & Chance, PC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/19/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 26, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Sherr-una Booker

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 898 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"NextGen Aircraft Design is Key to Aviation Sustainability","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"u9Hs5nA6YF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nextgen-aircraft-design-is-key-to-aviation-sustainability\/\">NextGen Aircraft Design is Key to Aviation Sustainability<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/nextgen-aircraft-design-is-key-to-aviation-sustainability\/embed\/#?secret=u9Hs5nA6YF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NextGen Aircraft Design is Key to Aviation Sustainability” — NASA\" data-secret=\"u9Hs5nA6YF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/acd16-0013-022_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":367}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Emma S. Douglas,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04355-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9661 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 1