alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:20-cv-03927 Document #: 10-5 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:200
Case: 1:20-cv-03927 Document #: 10-5 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:201
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,148-02

EX PARTE ANDREI GLUCK, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W03-51313-W(B) IN THE 363rd DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the state jail

offense of evading arrest and detention with a vehicle and sentenced to imprisonment for one

hundred-eighty days in county jail pursuant to TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.44 (a).

The Applicant alleges that his plea of guilty in this case was involuntary. The State, in

addition to pleading laches, responds to Applicant’s claim as follows, in pertinent part:
Further evidence is needed regarding defense counsel’s representation in this

case. Thus, the State requests that this Court issue an order designating issues and

requiring the gathering of evidence, as is customary, byway of affidavit from defense

counsel, a hearing, and/or other means as the Court may deem necessary.

 

Subsequently, on May5, 2014, a timelyorder designating issues was signed bythe trial court. 

We remand this application to the 363rd District Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to

complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue

raised by the Applicant. In addition, the trial court shall enterfindings of fact and conclusions of law

addressing whether the Applicant’s claim should be barred by laches.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 60 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 90 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be

obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 22, 2015

Do not publish
#### GARRETT et al. v. FAUST et al.

Civ. A. 7806.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 13, 1951.

*105Arthur II. Bartelt, Austin, Tex., for plaintiff.

Cornelius C. O’Brien, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Defendants have filed a motion for an order granting leave to pay money into court in satisfaction of a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Judgment was entered in the sum of Seventeen Thousand Dollars against the defendants as a result of findings by a jury.

Notice of appeal was filed together with bond for supersedeas in the amount of Thirty-four Thousand Dollars. The Court of Appeals, 3 Cir., 183 F.2d 625, subsequently vacated the judgment of this court and directed that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Nine Dollars and Ten Cents. Pursuant to the mandate of the court of Appeals judgment was entered in this court in the stated amount, with costs. Plaintiff then made application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. While that application was pending, the defendants moved for leave to pay moneys into court in settlement of the judgment against them. The motion was denied at that time on the ground that the application for certiorari was pending. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, 340 U.S. 931, 71 S.Ct. 493, as well as plaintiff’s petition for a rehearing 341 U.S. 917, 71 S.Ct. 733, and a motion for leave to file a second petition for rehearing, 341 U.S. 933, 71 S.Ct. 801. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals denied a motion to vacate and set aside its judgment. Plaintiff has since refused defendants’ request to have costs assessed or advise defendants of the amount required to satisfy the judgment entered against them in the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Nine Dollars and Ten Cents.

 Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion on the ground that the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacating the judgment previously entered in this court, and directing entry of a new judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a reduced amount, is void because the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction, under the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, to set aside a verdict and judgment on its own determination of issues of fact. However this court is not at liberty to entertain exceptions to a judgment of the Court of Appeals in any circumstances, and lacks the power and jurisdiction to grant plaintiff any relief.

Accordingly the defendants’ motion will be granted.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE
15d-14(b) and 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 Petrosearch Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
J. Collins, 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; 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 25, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      David J. CollinsDavid
      J. CollinsChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER






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





(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (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.





Date:
March 18, 2011
/s/ Thalia GietzenThalia GietzenVP of Finance





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 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.
**Exhibit 21**

 

 

| **Subsidiaries of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp.** |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                       |   |   |
| Name of Subsidiary                                         |   | State of Organization |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Village Bank                                               |   | Virginia |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Village Bank Mortgage Corporation                          |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)                  |   |   |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Village Insurance Agency, Inc.                             |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)                  |   |   |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Village Financial Services Corporation                     |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)                  |   |   |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Southern Community Financial Capital Trust I               |   | Virginia |
|                                                       |   |   |
| Village Financial Statutory Trust II                       |   | Virginia |
|                                                       |   |   |
Return on Investment initiative 

Progress

Henry Wixon

Chief Counsel
PMA Cross Agency Priority Goal

Walter Copan

Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology 

Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Michael Kratsios

Chief Technology Officer 

Deputy Assistant to the President for Technology Policy

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Interagency Partnering & Coordination

Participating Agencies

Entrepreneurial Training

Interagency Working Group

Interagency Working Group for

Technology Transfer

Interagency Working Group for 

Bayh-Dole

Federal Laboratory Consortium for

Technology Transfer

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

Program Managers Working Group

National Science and Technology Council Lab-toMarket Subcommittee

CAP Goal Leads

Lab-to-Market Cross Agency Priority Goal: 

Improve Transfer of Federally-Funded Technologies from Lab-to-Market

2
ROI Green Paper

3

15 key NIST findings to inform actions that will remove 

existing impediments to innovation at the public-private 

sector interface, and streamline and accelerate technology 

transfer 3

• Developed with support of the Science and Technology Policy 

Institute (STPI) and with White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

• Carefully considered extensive stakeholder inputs

• Addressed review with interagency working groups 

• Published as NIST Special Publication 1234 on April 24, 2019
Stevenson-Wydler Legislative Proposal

A number of the ROI findings would 

require legislative change to implement:

• Copyright in Federal lab software

• Extend CRADA information protection period

• S-W regulatory authority

• Royalty payments to Federal employees

• Presumption of government rights

• Clarify CRADA authority

• Expansion of ACT

• Expansion of OTA

• Expansion of Foundations

• Reporting and metrics

Action Timeline

Package to the Hill Est Nov 2019

Passage ???
Bayh-Dole Regulatory Action

Primarily Deregulatory; other draft 

actions:

• Addresses march-in rights for price control by 

further defining “reasonable terms”

• Clarifies “government use” rights

• Provides for a formal release process after a 

contractor has taken corrective actions after 

breaching a reporting requirement

• Permits up to 3% of funding to be used for IP 

protection

• Creates a parallel Federal report for extramural 

invention information

Action Timeline

Proposed Rule/Comment Est Jan 2019-Mar 2020

Final Rule Est May 2020
Other Actions

• Enhanced Use Lease Authority

• Employee inventor conflict of Interest

• Investment incentives
QUESTIONS?
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 MACQUARIE SECURITISATION LIMITED
OFFICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I, Matthew OHare certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports
filed in respect of periods included in the period covered by this
annual report, of Macquarie Securitisation Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports,
taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of 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 as of the last day of the
period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreements, for
inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreements
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
required under those agreements, and except as disclosed in these
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under those
agreements; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to
the servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreements, that
is included in these reports. Date: December 16, 2004  /s/ Matthew OHareMatthew OHare
Director 10
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LARRY JUNIOR COPELAND, a/k/a La

- la , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 7:10

- cr - 00066

- D

- 1; 7:14

- cv 00225

- D )

Submitted : September 24, 2018 Decided: October 3, 2018

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Larry Junior Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Junior Copeland seeks to appeal the dis trict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issu e absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cope land has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 87-5757.

#### Campos *v.*LeFevre, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Terry *v.*Morgan et al.,

No. 87-5918.

484 U. S. 1014; and 484 U. S. 1030. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ming Hsieh, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cogent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 suchstatements 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) discussed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 22, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 55

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House Oversight 
                   in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

 Mr. Thomas submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House Oversight 
                   in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on House Oversight (hereinafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $6,160,946 for the One Hundred 
Fifth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $3,133,200 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1998; and
            (2) not more than $3,027,746 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Oversight.
                                 <all>
```
A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to ESG Re Limitedand will be retained by ESG Re Limited and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

**Exhibit99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ESG Re Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alasdair P. Davis, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Alasdair P. Davis   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Alasdair P. Davis       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 29, 2003            |

 

----
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-1 No. 333-119480-11 and Form S-4 No. 333-115560-15) of Nalco Holdings LLC and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Nalco Holdings LLC, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Nalco Holdings LLC, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
February 27, 2008

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador RAMIREZ-CAMACHO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10225.

D.C. No. CR-02-00072-LRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 13, 2004.

Robert A. Bork, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Randall J. Roske, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Salvador Ramirez-Camacho appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of unlawful reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Ramirez-Camacho contends that the district court abused its discretion by departing two levels rather than the requested eight levels. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary decision as to the extent of the downward departure. *United States v. Vizcarra-Angulo,*904 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that a district court’s decision in fixing the extent of a downward departure is not reviewable). *See also United States v. Linn,*362 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the PROTECT Act did not mandate review of discretionary denials of downward departures).

DISMISSED.

**

 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.