alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

        In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SensiVida Medical
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended February 28, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Kamal Sarbadhikari, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Frank D. Benick, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.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 15, 2009                            By:   /s/ Kamal Sarbadhikari
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Kamal Sarbadhikari
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 15, 2009                            By:   /s/ Frank D. Benick
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Frank D. Benick
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


        This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

        A signed original of this written statement required by ss.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.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11364 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RAY ZEPEDA SANCHEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 147

- 3

Before DAVIS, JONES, and OLDHAM , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ray Zepeda Sanchez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 26, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11364 Document: 00515012138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2019No. 18

- 11364

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11364 Document: 00515012138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2019
#### Kinter, Appellant, *v.*Kinter, Appellee, et al.

(No. 3983

Decided April 6, 1949.)

*Messrs. Radley & Weaver,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Bailey & Bailey,*for appellee.

Hunsicker, J.

In this appeal on questions of law, appellant, .Leah Louise Kinter, seeks to reverse a judgment sustaining a demurrer to her petition for damages, alleged to be the result of a conspiracy to give false testimony in appellant’s prior divorce action against the appellee herein, Clarence C. Kinter. *400No summons was ever served on the other alleged conspirator.

The appellee Kinter demurred to the petition on the ground that no cause of action was stated therein.

In the petition, claim is made that appellee and another conspired to give false testimony in appellant’s divorce action, which testimony was given by the other party, resulting in a divorce being granted appellee on the ground of adultery.

The deteiuninative question in this case is whether a petition which alleges a conspiracy to give false testimony in a prior divorce action between the parties herein, which claimed testimony was then given in such prior divorce action, states a cause of action for damages claimed to be the result of the testimony so given.

The general rule is that the giving of false testimony in a judicial proceeding does not give rise to a civil action for damages for injury resulting from the giving of false testimony. 58 American Jurisprudence, Witnesses, Section 886; 12 A. L. R., 1269; 81 A. L. R., 1126; 3 Restatement of the Law of Torts, Section 588.

In Ohio, the rule is declared to be that “language used in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, whether by the judge, a party, counsel, jurors or witnesses, is protected if it be relevant to the matter under consideration, and the court have jurisdiction. ’ ’ *Liles*v. *Gaster, 42*Ohio St., 631, 635.

This privilege accorded to a witness is founded upon public policy. The administration of justice would be impeded if actions, such as the one herein, were permitted to be brought against a witness by a party to the action, for damages, claimed to be the result of the testimony given.

*401If the statements allegedly made were pertinent to the issue, and by a reading of the petition such pertinency is obvious, then this action cannot be maintained.

“Where a witness in a judicial proceeding testifies to matters pertinent to the issue an action cannot be maintained against him by the party against whom such testimony is given on the ground that the testimony is false and was the cause of the judgment rendered against such party.” *Bickerstaff*v. *Hingsley,*1 Ohio App., 91.

•We have examined all other claimed errors and find none prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Stevens, P. J., and Doyle, J., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41429

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS JAVIER CANTU-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1375-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Luis Javier Cantu-Moreno 

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. MartinezLugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 

2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug 

trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41429 Document: 00513241889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-41429

2

offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity. Accordingly, 

Cantu-Moreno’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41429 Document: 00513241889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          60,114
<SECURITIES>                                    89,685
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,196
<INVENTORY>                                     36,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,163
<PP&E>                                          66,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 364,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,906
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,423
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   364,688
<SALES>                                        373,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,732
<CGS>                                          157,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.41
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:41
Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:42
##### 



Exhibit 10.32
 8% DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE
Payable on Demand
 March 21, 2007
    
    $30,000
  1. Interest Rate
 2. Payable on Demand
 3. Default Rate of Interest
 4. Rights and Remedies of Payee
 5. Attorneys Fees
 6. Maximum Interest Rate
 1




---



##### 



7. Waivers
 8. Governing Law and Venue
 9. Severability
 10. Time of Essence
 11. Binding Effect
 12. Miscellaneous
 13. Notice
 2




---



##### 



14. Documentary Tax
   Dated: March 21, 2007
    ODIMO INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporationBy:
    /s/ Amerisa KornblumName:
    Amerisa KornblumTitle:
    President 3
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

 

 

 

| August 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/           Harry N. Stout |   |
|-----------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)

   |   |  Harry N. Stout

 President

  

                |   |
Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 472-5 Filed: 10/29/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:12890
	
 


 !"##$%& #'()(*(+,-.#,-.#,-//012345*67,+-8,.9 3((:;3 .(
((-<6)8#0=)8# 

>>>?@ABCD?EFG?@A>@HI?IJH?@ABCD?EFG?@A KLMNOPQRSTUVUWXWVYUZ[\ ]^_``abc defghijklmno pq rstuvq wxyz rs{| }~ rs W ZVW`  UVUWXWVYUW[   U ZV W UVUWXWVYUW[    ZZU U UVUWXWVYUV[    ZUZZV WW UVUWXWVYUV[   Z Z`U`Z  UVUWXWVYUV[   ` Z`UUW U UVUWXWVYUV[    Z`UU U` UVUWXWVYUV[    Z`VUU Z UVUWXWVYUV[    Z`VV W UVUWXWVYUV[   WV Z`VWVW W UVUWXWVYUV[   WW ZZU`  UVUWXWVYUV[   WU ZZU  UVUWXWVYUV[   W ZZU V UVUWXWVYUV[   W Z` WU UVUWXWVYUV[   WZ ZZ` UW UVUWXWVYUV[   W` ZWZ` UW UVUWXV`YV[   W ZWW  UVUWXVUYUZ[   W ZWUZ  UVUWXVUYUZ[   W ZVZ U UVUWXVUYUZ[   UV Z`WV Z UVUWXVUYUZ[   UW ZWU UW UVUWXVUYUZ[   UU ZVW  UVUWXVUYUZ[   U Z`ZUV V UVUWXVUYUZ[   U ZZW UV UVUWXVUYUZ[   UZ ZZWVZ W` UVUWXVUYUZ[   U` ZZ ` UVUWXVUYUZ[   U ZV ` UVUWXVUYUZ[   U ZWVZ  UVUWXVUYUZ[   U ZV U UVUWXVUYUZ[   V Z W UVUWXVUYUZ[   W Z`Z` UU UVUWXVUYUZ[   U Z`ZV WV UVUWXVUYUZ[    Z`ZVV U UVUWXVUYUZ[    Z``W Z UVUWXVUYUZ[   Z Z` W UVUWXVUYUZ[   ` Z`UV  UVUWXVUYUZ[    Z`W`  UVUWXVUYUZ[    Z`WUZZ WW UVUWXVUYUZ[    ZZZ WZ UVUWXVUYUZ[   V ZZZ`V U UVUWXVUYUZ[   W ZZ`U  UVUWXVUYUZ[   U ZZ W UVUWXVUYUZ[    ZW` W UVUWXVWYUW[  

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 472-5 Filed: 10/29/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:12891
	
 


 !"##$%& #'()(*(+,-.#,-.#,-//012345*67,+-8,.9 3((:;3 .(
((-<6)8#0=)8# 

>?@ABCCDEABFGH

II JKLMNJNI KO NONLPOLQNLR STU VW IJ JNOJKXMK KX NONOPLNQLOR STYZ [S\]^_`abcdefg Ih IMNiiIKL KX NONOPOhQLhR STU [SjTUabcdeklfg IM IJiLJhIN KJ NONOPOIQNhR STb [Smn_`abcdefg Ii IJiOKhOL KX NONOPOIQNhR STb [Smn_`abcdefg IX IJhKIhXh KX NONOPOIQNLR STo [Spa_`abcdefg JO IJKXMJNI IL NONOPOIQLKR STq rsmtuvwxyz{|}~} L N  

d_ i ¡¢LKhh£Mhi

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 472-5 Filed: 10/29/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:12892
	
 


 !"##$%& #'()(*(+,-.#,-.#,-//012345*67,+-8,.9 3((:;3 .(
((-<6)8#0=)8# 

>>>?@ABCD?EFG?@A>@HI?IJH?@ABCD?EFG?@A KLMNOPQRSTUVUWXWVYUZ[\ ]^_``abc defghijklmno

pqrstuuvwstxyx

z{ |}y~{  |}  |} ZW ZWVV  UVUVXVYW[  b ZU W W ` U UVWXWVYU[ ¡¢ £¤¥¦§ ̈©a«¬­® ̄° Z  WV  UVWXVYU`[ ± 23 Z Z VU  UVWXVYW[  ́μ ¶·a ̧1a«¬­® ̄° ZZ     UVW XVYV[ ± ¶±a­® ̄° Z` `Z`  UVW XVYV[ ± o»1⁄4 Z V`Z  UVW XVZYV [ 1⁄2 ¤3⁄4¿ Z  UUVVZZ U UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° Z UUVV   UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° `V UUVVUV UZ UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° `W UUV` W W UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° `U UUV`Z`  WU UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° ` UUV```  UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° ` UUV`WU U  UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° `Z UUVZU  UVW`XWWYUZ[  ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆ­® ̄° `` WZZ` U UVWXWUYW[ ± £¤¥¦ÇÈÉÊË1⁄4Ì­® ̄° ÍÍ Í W U

ÎÏÐ­S ̧ÑÒÓÔÏÕ Ö×ØÙÚÛC@ÜÝÞBß àáÎÖâãäåæçèéêëW``ì` 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 472-5 Filed: 10/29/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:12893
H. Res. 579

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 7, 1998.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 4104) making appropriations for the Treasury

Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive

Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the conference report

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 408

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself and Mr. STUPAK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NA4 TIONAL LAKESHORE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—When title to the land described 

6 in subsection (b) has vested in the United States in fee 

7 simple, the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

8 Lakeshore is revised to include such land in that park. 

9 (b) LAND DESCRIBED.—The land referred to in sub10 section (a) consists of approximately 104.45 acres of un11 improved lands generally depicted on National Park Serv-
2

•HR 408 IH 

1 ice map number 634/80078, entitled ‘‘Bayberry Mills, Inc. 

2 Crystal River, MI Proposed Expansion Unit to Sleeping 

3 Bear Dunes National Lakeshore’’. The Secretary of the 

4 Interior shall keep such map on file and available for pub5 lic inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 

6 Park Service. 

7 (c) PURCHASE OF LANDS AUTHORIZED.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Inte9 rior may acquire the land described in subsection 

10 (b), only by purchase from a willing seller. 

11 (2) BUDGET REQUEST.—The Secretary of the 

12 Interior shall include in the National Park Service 

13 budget submitted for fiscal year 2004 a request for 

14 funds necessary for the acquisition authorized by 

15 this subsection. 

16 (d) LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR

17 CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Interior may not ac18 quire any of the land described in subsection (b) through 

19 any exchange or conveyance of lands that are within the 

20 boundary of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

21 as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
10279.

#### Butler *v.*Mooty, administrator.

Decided April 16, 1919.

Motion for a new trial; from city court of LaGrange—Arthur Greer, judge pro hac vice. December 11, 1918.

From the bill of exceptions it appears that a judge pro hac vice, by agreement of the parties and under “orders regularly entered on the minutes, in accordance with the requirements of the law,” presided on the trial of this case at the March quarterly term of the city court of LaGrange. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed at the same term a motion for a new trial, and at that term and during a session of the court when the judge of the city court was presiding the judge pro hac vice signed a rule nisi directing the plaintiff to show cause on a named day in vacation why the motion should not be granted, and signed an order extending until the hearing the time for presenting a brief of the evidence. The bill of exceptions states that these orders were not signed while the judge pro hac vice was upon the bench presiding, but were signed while he was in the bar of the court. By subsequent order he extended the time for the hearing of the motion for a new trial, and at the December quarterly term, 1918, he approved the brief of the evidence and an amendment to the motion. The plaintiff then moved to dismiss the motion, because the rule nisi “was not issued from the city court of LaGrange, it not being signed by the judge of said court,” and because the order continuing th.e.;hearing of the motion was not signed by the judge of the city court.. The judge *573pro hae vice sustained this motion and dismissed the motion for a new trial; and to this the defendant excepted.

*572Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision in *Gainesville Buggy and Wagon Co.*v. *Morrow,*23 *Ga. App.*268 (98 S. E. 100). The judge pro hac vice erred in dismissing the motion for a new trial. Let it he reinstated.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*573
      *Hatton Lovejoy, Duke Davis, for*plaintiff in error.

*M. U. Mooty, contra.*
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  Quarterly  Report  of CompX  International  Inc.  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Darryl R.
Halbert, Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.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/Darryl R. Halbert
------------------------------------
Darryl R. Halbert
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
 and Controller
October 30, 2003





Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
Order entered Ju ly 2 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00529

- CR

JASON MICHAEL SWARM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Ju dicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 80775

- 2017



### O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.
We abated the appeal for appointment of counsel. On June 19, 2019, we received a copy
of the amended appeal schedule noting that counsel had been appointed

. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to list Kara Fitts appointed counsel for appellant.
Before the Court is court reporter Robyn Rodriguez’s May 29, 2019 request for
additional time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and O RDER the reporter’s

record filed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARY RAY WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-122-F; CA-01-489-5-F)

Submitted: April 1, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF, WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Chapel

Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gary Ray Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Webb 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Gene WALTERS, d/b/a Walter’s Chevron Service Station, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., (formerly Standard Oil Company), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-3651

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 23, 1980.

David R. Wininger, Decatur, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jule W. Felton, Jr., John G. Parker, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Before GEE, RUBIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

PER CURIAM:

For the reasons stated in the order of the court below, 476 F.Supp. 353 (N.D.Ga.1979), we affirm its denial of injunctive relief under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2801 *et seq.*

AFFIRMED.