alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7224

THOMAS P. VITRANO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JENNIFER SAAD, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv
- 00220

- IMK

- JES )

Submitted : April 17, 2017 Decided: April 26, 2017

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Thomas P. Vitrano, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Thomas P. Vitrano , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the magistrate judge ’s finding that Vitrano failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition , concluding that waiving the exhaustion requirement ser ved the interest of judicial economy, a nd denying relief on the
merits . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Vitrano v . Saad , No. 1:15

- cv
- 00220

- IMK

- JES (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 31, 2016)

. We deny Vitrano’s motion for transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is cou rt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Order filed, September 17, 2015.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-15-00732-CV

MARINA PRESLEY, Appellant

V.

N.V. MASUREEL VEREDELING, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 2006-46323B

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 8, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Darlene Stein, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record 

in this appeal, if any, within 20 days of the date of this order.

/s/ Terry Jennings
 Acting individually
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0212

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LOUIS TED CAYE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2023

02/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0212
Exhibit 32



Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based on our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  |                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                     |  |  |  |                           
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  | By:                  |  | /s/ Richard D. Balanson                                                           
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | Richard D. Balanson                                                               
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                             
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ David H. Russian
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | David H. Russian                                                                  
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer, CorporateSecretary and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN JOHNSON,
Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Appellee. §

§ No. 296, 2023 § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N) § § §
Submitted: February 7, 2024 Decided: April 12, 2024

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS , Justices.

ORDER
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to
affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s summary dismissal
of the appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief. Because the appellant,
Jonathan Johnson, waived his right to a jury trial and chose to plead guilty, he cannot
avail himself of the “actual-innocence” exception to Superior Court Criminal Rule
61’s procedural bars. 1 In any event, the information contained in the police report
that Johnson claims the State did not turn over in discovery is neither new evidence

1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction invalid).2 nor evidence of Johnson’s actual innocence. We have previously warned Johnson—
who has filed four appeals and two petitions for extraordinary writs relating to his
convictions in this Court in the last four years—that he could be enjoined from filing
future appeals or writs raising repetitive claims without leave of the Court, 2 and we
reiterate that warning here.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

2 In re Johnson , 2023 WL 116481, at *2 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023).
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 Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial 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.







March 4, 2011
By:
/s/ John HerzogJohn Herzog, Interim Chief Financial 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.
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Terrence Terrell Hatcher 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 947A 400 

rel- SirkidusS Lliar,--A;3'
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,719] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of the workers of AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., Kingsport Corporate Services Office, Kingsport, Tennessee. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11870 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Glacial Aggregates LLC, Respondent, v Town of Yorkshire, Appellant.

Submitted November 22, 2010;

decided February 15, 2011

Motion to vacate the Court’s October 22, 2010 dismissal order granted *[see*15 NY3d 891 (2010)]. On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee Ann
Anderson, Vice President and Trust Officer of TexasBank, on behalf of TexasBank, the Trustee of the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust), not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of
the Trust, hereby certify that:  1.
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 1
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September
16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from
generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other
royalty trusts); and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:
    
    Lee Ann AndersonTitle:
    
    Vice President and Trust OfficerDate: May 10, 2005
   *
    
    The Trust has no executive officers.
#              Speeches and Presentations        

# Speeches and Presentations

2024202320222021202020192018201720162015
#### Amy L. Roberts et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., et al., Appellants.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 71.

Motion by New York City Council Members Maria del Carmen Arroyo et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
EXHIBIT 10





                     EXHIBIT 10.2

      CONSENT OF JEWETT, SCHWARTZ AND ASSOCIATES 

                     

JEWETT, SCHWARTZ, & ASSOCIATES

CERTFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT




The Board of Directors

Lakefield Ventures, Inc. 




Dear Sirs:







 We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Lakefield Ventures, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10SB-12G of our report relating to the Company's financial statements appearing in this  Registration Statement. 

 

/s/Jewett, Schwartz, & Associates 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

 

Jewett, Schwartz, & Associates 

Hollywood, FL 

October 14, 2004
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF

THE
TRUSTEE*

OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee Ann Anderson, Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of Compass Bank, on behalf of Compass Bank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust), not in its
individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 1 to the Trusts financial statements contained
in the Report, in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September 16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting
principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAN
JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:

/s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:

Lee Ann AndersonTitle:

Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate: August 10, 2015




|* | The Trust has no executive officers.
|- | ------------------------------------
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20814

crystal.card@nih.gov

July 2020

Back to Top
Exhibit 23.2


Independent Accountants' Consent


Board of Directors
DATA RACE, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (No.
333-57058,  No. 333-38450,  No. 333-77713,  No. 333-72505, No. 333-24305 and No.
333-24303) on Form S-8 and in the Registration  Statements (No.  333-57166,  No.
333-41286,  No. 333-94601,  No. 333-83595,  No.  333-71319,  No. 333-62147,  No.
333-53757,  No. 333-42203,  and No. 333-22605) on Form S-3 of DATA RACE, Inc. of
our report dated  November 2, 2001,  relating to the balance sheet of DATA RACE,
Inc.  as  of  June  30,  2001,   and  the  related   statements  of  operations,
shareholders'  equity and cash flows for the year ended, which report appears in
the June 30, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of DATA RACE, Inc.


                                        LAZAR LEVINE & FELIX LLP

New York, NY 10018
December 11, 2001


                                       70
#### Narcisco F. SUAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-15918

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 12, 2009.

Narcisco F. Suarez, Miami, FL, pro se.

Lisette M. Reid, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dawn Bowen, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Narcisco F. Suarez, a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of *audita querela.*He contends that the district court erred in denying the petition because his sentence is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

“We review *de novo*the question of whether a prisoner may challenge his sentence by filing a motion for a writ of *audita*querela.” *United States v. Holt,*417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir.2005).

*Audita querela*is “an ancient writ used to attack the enforcement of a judgment after it was rendered.” *Id.*Suarez contends that a writ of *audita querela*is the proper avenue for relief because his sentence was correct when it was rendered but later became unconstitutional after *Booker*because the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory. Although we have noted that “federal courts may properly fill the interstices of the federal post-conviction remedial framework through remedies available at common law,” *id.*at 1175 (quotation omitted), a writ of *audita querela*may not be granted where the “relief [sought] is cognizable under [28 *888U.S.C.] § 2255.” *Id.*Here the relief that Suarez seeks—vacating his sentence as unconstitutional—falls within the scope of § 2255.1 Therefore, Suarez cannot seek relief from his sentence under a writ of *audita querela.*The district court properly denied his motion.2

AFFIRMED.

1

. Section 2255 provides, in relevant part:

> A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution ... or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law ... may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

2

. Because Suarez is proceeding *pro se,*we looked beyond the label of his motion to determine whether his claim is cognizable under another statutory framework. *See United States v. Jordan,*915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir.1990). The only applicable alternative statutory framework here would be § 2255. Suarez, however, has specifically requested that we not consider his motion under § 2255 and we will honor that request. Regardless, Suarez's claim would fail under § 2255 because *Booker*and *Apprendi*are not retroactively applicable in that context. *See Varela v. United States,*400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005); *McCoy v. United States,*266 F.3d 1245, 1258 (11th Cir.2001).
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Second Amendment to the Feb. 25, 2015 Preservation Order and Testing Control Plan


Download file: Second Amendment to the Feb. 25, 2015 Preservation Order and Testing Control Plan
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyrique L. Massey, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 838]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered January 6, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). The record does not support defendant’s contention that County Court misapprehended the extent of its discretion when it denied his request *1360for a “violent felony override” pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1900.4 (c) (1) (iii) (see *People v Williams,*84 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 863 [2011]; *see generally People v Singer,*104 AD3d 1311, 1311 [2013]), and we reject defendant’s further contention that the court abused its discretion in denying that request. The sentence, which is in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.