alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-51125

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CR-10-1

Before CLEMENT, OWEN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carol Johnene Morris, former federal prisoner # 76547-080 and current 

Texas prisoner # 1681899, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her 

appeal from the district court’s order denying her a motion for free transcripts 

to file a third motion for coram nobis relief. Morris’s brief focuses on appealing 

the denial of coram nobis relief in the district court’s order of August 8, 2016, 

which was the subject of a prior appeal. She has not addressed her eligibility 

 

* 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

September 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-51125 Document: 00514637275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2018
No. 17-51125

2

for a transcript nor has she addressed this court’s sanction order, which 

resulted from the prior appeal. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, 

even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Morris has abandoned all 

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Morris has not shown that her appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits, leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is 

DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH 

CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-51125 Document: 00514637275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2018
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

 

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this 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 report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor 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, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 21, 2005
================================================================================

                                                                    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  Quarterly  Report  of BSD  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended  November 30, 2007, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Hyrum A. Mead,  President  (Principal  Executive  Officer) of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                               /s/ Hyrum A. Mead
                                               ------------------
                                               Hyrum A. Mead
                                               President (Principal Executive
                                               Officer)
                                               January 9, 2008




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 443 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 443

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.

    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 ``Antitrust Criminal Investigative 
Improvements Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR 
              INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC 
              COMMUNICATIONS.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United State Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (q), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (r) as subparagraph (s); 
        and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (q) the following:
            ``(r) any criminal violation of section 1 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce), 2 (relating to 
        illegal monopolizing of trade or commerce), or 3 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce in territories or the 
        District of Columbia) of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3); 
        or''.

            Passed the Senate October 25, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 443

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.
```
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 Quarterly Report of Cubic Energy, 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, CEO and CFO,
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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: November 13, 2003                     Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Calvin A. Wallen, III
                                                      As CEO and CFO
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00747-CV

Marcelo GALVAN Jr. and Analicia R. Galvan,

Appellants

v.

Cledson Macedo de CARVALHO and Kristina Carvalho,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVH001835-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

To date, appellants Marcelo Galvan Jr. and Analicia R. Galvan have failed to 

pay the applicable filing fee in this appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 

provides,

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs 

must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are 

required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may 

enforce this rule by any order that is just.

TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 

We, therefore, ORDER appellants, no later than ten (10) days of the date 

of this order, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee in this appeal or (2) provide 

written proof to this court that they are excused by statute or these rules from 

paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (providing that party who qualifies 

as indigent under Rule 20 may proceed without advance payment of costs). If 

appellants fail to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Additionally, appellants’ docketing statement, which was due on October 

26, 2018, has not been filed. We ORDER appellants, no later than fourteen (14) 

days of the date of this order to file a docketing statement.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Velasquez’s

request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC;

FANNIE MAE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17173

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01019-GEBJFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as barred by the

FILED

AUG 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17173

doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Velasquez’s action as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because Velasquez raised, or could have raised, these

claims in his prior action that involved the same defendants and was decided on the

merits. See id. (res judicata bars litigation in a subsequent action of “‘any claims

that were raised or could have been raised’ in a prior action” (emphasis and citation

omitted)).

Velasquez’s pending loan modification applications do not render this case

moot because they do not resolve the parties’ dispute. See Leigh v. Salazar, 677

F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (case is moot if events subsequent to the filing of the

case resolve the parties’ dispute).

Velasquez’s requests for judicial notice are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1



September 28, 2004



Via Facsimile (847-279-6123) and

Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested



Akorn, Inc.

Attn: Arthur S. Przybyl, President and CEO

2500 Millbrook Drive

Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089




     Re: Limited Waiver



Ladies and Gentlemen:



     Reference is hereby made to that certain Convertible Bridge Loan and
Warrant Agreement dated as of July 12, 2001, as amended by that First Amendment
to Convertible Bridge Loan and Warrant Agreement dated as of December 20, 2001,
as further amended by that Second Amendment to Convertible Bridge Loan and
Warrant Agreement dated as of August 21, 2002, as further amended by that Third
Amendment to Convertible Bridge Loan and Warrant Agreement dated as of December
31, 2002, as further amended by that Fourth Amendment to Convertible Bridge
Loan and Warrant Agreement dated as of October 7, 2003 (collectively, the
“Agreement”), by and between Akorn, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (“Borrower”),
and The John N. Kapoor Trust dated September 20, 1989 (the “Lender”), pursuant
to which the Lender made certain loans and other extensions of credit available
to Borrower evidenced by (a) that certain Convertible Promissory Note dated as
of July 12, 2001, in favor of the Lender in the original principal amount of
$3,000,000; and (b) that certain Convertible Promissory Note dated as of July
12, 2001, in favor of the Lender in the original principal amount of
$2,000,000. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Loan Agreement.



     Lender hereby waives the applicability of all of Section 9(e) of the
Agreement, which reads as follows:




“(e) The Company shall have (i) failed to obtain all necessary
shareholder consents to the Tranche A Loan, Tranche B Loan, the issuance
of the Tranche A Note and the issuance of the Tranche B Note on or prior
to September 30, 2004, or (ii) on or prior to September 30, 2004,
provided the Lender with an opinion of counsel reasonably acceptable to
the Lender stating that no such shareholder consents are currently
required.”



     The limited waiver set forth above shall be limited precisely as written
and shall not be construed to constitute a waiver for any other purpose or
otherwise be deemed an amendment of the Agreement. Except as otherwise
provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement



 









 




shall remain in full
force and effect and the parties shall have all of the rights and remedies
thereunder.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,





THE JOHN N. KAPOOR TRUST DATED

SEPTEMBER 20, 1989

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John N. Kapoor
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John N. Kapoor 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Trustee
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEMETRIUS ALVIN BANKS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00061

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2021 Decided: March 2, 2021

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Amos G. Tyndall, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States A ttorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Alvin Banks appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to 20 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Banks seeks to challenge the legality of the search and seizure that led to the discovery of his supervised release violation, arguing that, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, law
enforc ement obtained certain incriminating evidence that was used against him in the revocation proceeding. Thus, according to Banks, the district court should have suppressed
this evidence. Generally, under the exclusionary rule, the prosecution is prohibited from introducing at a criminal trial “evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Stephens , 764 F.3d 327, 335 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. However, “the exclusionary rule does not appl y in federal supervised release revocation proceedings.” United States v. Armstrong , 187 F.3d 392 , 393 (4th Cir. 1999) . Because the disputed evidence was used in a revocation proceeding, not a criminal prosecution, we conclude that Armstrong forecloses B anks’ attempt to suppress the evidence supporting the revocation of his supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm Banks’ revocation judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 78 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 78

               To make permanent marriage penalty relief.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Bunning, 
 Mr. Burns, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Ensign) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To make permanent marriage penalty relief.

    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 ``Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

    Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply 
to sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty 
relief).
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Gamber, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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














January 19, 2011
By:
/s/ Charles L. GamberCharles L.Gamber, Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arête Industries, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
EXHIBIT 32.1

Officers Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the Company) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report is in full compliance 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.



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Wm. Stacy Locke                  
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Wm. Stacy Locke                      
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"Student Senate","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HQ5e686Y92\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/student-senate\/\">Student Senate<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/student-senate\/embed\/#?secret=HQ5e686Y92\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Student Senate” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"HQ5e686Y92\" 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"}