alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerald Lee HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.T. LUNA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-50436

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2007.

Jerald Lee Hines, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerald Hines, federal prisoner # 48922-080, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the sentence credit he was given for time served in state prison and the validity of his guilty plea and conviction. The district court rejected Hines’s sentence-credit argument, and it found that his remaining claims were not cognizable under § 2241 and should have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Hines has abandoned his sentence-credit argument by failing to renew it on appeal. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). He has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his claims challenging his guilty plea and conviction were best construed as § 2255 claims. *See Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000); *Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.,*911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990). Hines likewise has not shown that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904, 906 n. 34 (5th Cir.2001). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1
------------

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (SEC File # 333-83504), filed on February 27, 2002, of our independent
accountant's review report dated May 12, 2003 relating to the unaudited
consolidated balance sheets of Composite Technology Corporation (SEC File
#0-10999, CIK # 317477) as of March 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related statements
of operations and comprehensive loss for the six and three months ended March
31, 2003 and 2002 and the related statements of cash flows for each of the six
months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which report appears in the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Composite Technology Corporation.

                                                        /s/ S. W. Hatfield, CPA
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        S. W. HATFIELD, CPA
Dallas, Texas
December 13, 2003
EXHIBIT 31


                                                  CERTIFICATIONS
I, Jehu Hand, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of California Service
Stations,  Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this annual  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 30, 2004

/s/ Jehu Hand
 Chief Financial Officer
11977.

#### WATSON *v.*THE STATE.

That the court charged the jury without charging them on the defense of alibi, until after they had been allowed to go to their room for the purpose of finding a verdict, was not cause for a new trial, where they were recalled and charged on that defense within three minutes after they had left the court-room.

Decided January 25, 1921.

Indictment for possession of liquor; from Webster superior court — Judge Littlejohn. October 26, 1920.

*M. A. Walker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

There was some evidence in this case to authorize the conviction of the defendant. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and this court cannot say that it was error not to grant a new trial upon the general grounds. The only other assignment of error is upon the ground that although the defendant’s only defense was an alibi, the jury were sent out to find their verdict without being charged on that subject, although they were subsequently recalled and properly charged thereon. The court certifies that the jury were not out of'the court-room more than three minutes before they were recalled and charged upon the law of alibi. This was not error. See, in this connection, *Davis v. State,*122 *Ga.*564 (3) (50 S. E. 376). Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### Yolanda Camacho RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72547.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Yolanda Camacho Rodriguez, Lawndale, CA, pro se.

Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioner Yolanda Camacho Rodriguez’s application for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioner failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004).

*954Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21.1

List of Subsidiaries

1.       Choice One Communications International Inc.
2.       Choice One Communications of New York Inc.
3.       Choice One Communications of Pennsylvania Inc.
4.       Choice One Communications of Ohio Inc.
5.       Choice One Communications of Vermont Inc.
6.       Choice One Communications of Connecticut Inc.
7.       Choice One Communications of Massachusetts Inc.
8.       Choice One Communications of Rhode Island Inc.
9.       Choice One Communications of Maine Inc.
10.      Choice One of New Hampshire Inc.
11.      Choice One OnLine Inc.
12.      Choice One Communications of Virginia Inc.
13.      US Xchange, Inc.
14.      US Xchange of Michigan, L.L.C.
15.      US Xchange of Indiana, L.L.C.
16.      US Xchange of Illinois, L.L.C.
17.      US Xchange of Wisconsin, L.L.C.
18.      Choice One Communcations Services Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ELIZABETH OVERBROOK,1

 

Respondent BelowAppellant, 

v. 

CHARLES OVERBROOK, 

Petitioner BelowAppellee.

§ 

§ No. 349, 2017 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Family Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ File No. CN15-01519 

§ Petition No. 15-27574 

§ 

§

 Submitted: December 22, 2017 

 Decided: January 8, 2018 

ORDER 

This 8th day of January 2018, it appears to the Court that, on December 11, 

2017, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why her 

appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to pay the Family Court appeal fee. 

The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required tenday period. Dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

Justice

 

1

 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

JOHN P. ROGERS, * 

 * 

Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 09-00368-WS-B 

 * 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, * 

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, * 

 * 

Defendant. * 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 

denying Plaintiff=s claim for disability insurance benefits, be REVERSED and REMANDED. 

Upon remand, the ALJ should explain the weight accorded Dr. Kanwal‘s opinion regarding 

Plaintiff’s squatting/bending limitation, and to consider whether this limitation impacts Plaintiff 

ability to perform his past relevant work, or if necessary, any other work which exists in 

significant numbers in the national economy. 

 

DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of August, 2010. 

 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00368-WS-B Document 24 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Condensed Financial Statements As Of Sepember 30, 1995 And For The Nine
Months Then Ended And Is Qualified In Its Entirety By Reference To Such
Financial Statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1636
<BONDS>                                           3795
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3399)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2033
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   288
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       25
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (253)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (253)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (253)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (253)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

VS. : CRIMINAL NO. MJ-15-00078-C

LOUIS ANGEL RODRIQUEZ-HERNANDEZ :

ORDER

The defendant appeared before the undersigned for purposes of an initial 

appearance on July 17, 2015. (Docs. 4-10.) Hearings on the detention motion (Doc. 9) 

were held on July 22 & 24, 2015 with an oral ruling that the motion be denied and the 

defendant released into the custody of his brother who had traveled from Houston, 

Texas for the hearing. Because of a hold placed on the defendant last Friday by ICE, he 

was not released by Metro Jail until this morning, July 27, 2015. His brother was not 

able to wait for him over the weekend and now the defendant is without funds to pay 

for lodging, meals and transportation in order to travel to Houston as ordered. 

The defendant has been represented by court-appointed counsel throughout 

these proceedings and informed the Court in a hearing held today that he is without 

funds sufficient to pay for his subsistence and transportation to Houston. This 

information satisfies the Court that the defendant is unable to provide the necessary 

transportation to travel to the location of his home confinement. Additionally, until he 

is able to procure a bus ticket, he is unable to afford subsistence expenses pending his 

return to his brother’s home for pretrial detention.

Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4285, the United States Marshal for the 

Southern District of Alabama is ORDERED to arrange for the defendant’s noncustodial 

transportation to Houston, Texas and back to Mobile, Alabama for court appearances, 

Case 1:15-mj-00078-C Document 19 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

or furnish the fare for such transportation. The Marshal is ADDITIONALLY 

ORDERED to provide the defendant with monies for his subsistence in Mobile, 

Alabama. The subsistence expenses are not to exceed the amount authorized as a per 

diem allowance for travel under 5 U.S.C. § 5702(a).

DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of July, 2015.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-mj-00078-C Document 19 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                 91,487
<SECURITIES>                           752,000
<RECEIVABLES>                          687,462
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            173,115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,763,868
<PP&E>                                 510,565
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         5,416,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  6,779,830
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               7,817
<OTHER-SE>                             (1,370,873)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5,416,774
<SALES>                                1,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,839,000
<CGS>                                  1,626,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          347,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (135,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (135,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (135,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (Rule 13a-14(a) Certification)


I, Jerome K. Thorson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 3Si
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:  /s/ Jerome K. Thorson
Jerome K. Thorson, President/CEO
Date:  November 13, 2004
Vellmer &
ChangChartered Accountants
*

505  815 Hornby
StreetVancouver, B.C, V6Z
2E6Tel:
604-687-3776Fax:
604-687-3778E-mail:
info@vellmerchang.com* denotes a firm
of incorporated professionals

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 000-28025 on Form S-3/A and 333-117199 on Form S-8
of our report dated March 16, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Global Energy Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

VELLMER & CHANG

/s/ Vellmer & Chang

Vancouver, BCMarch
16, 2006

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 1459

_____________________________
T ERRY P ERRY , Appellant,

v.

T HERESA P ERRY n/k/a T HERESA C LIFFORD , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven M. Fahlgren , Judge

. January 19 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

R AY and O STERHAUS , JJ., and P ATTERSON , C HRISTOPHER N., A SSOCIATE J UDGE , concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Terry Perry, pro se
, Appellant.

J. Garfield Hurt of the Law Office of J. Garfield Hurt, M iddleburg
, for Appellee.
April 30, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 30th day of April, 2015.

10-15-00073-CV	IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIP OF AMANDALEE ELLEN SOMMERVILLE, WARD - ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF LIMESTONE COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 7796 - DISMISSED - Opinion by Justice Davis:

“This cause came on to be heard on the Court’s own motion to dismiss appeal, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of the Court that said appeal should be dismissed; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that said appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed.  It is further ordered that Appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png