alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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
March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60799 Summary Calendar

RICKY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ET AL.,

Defendants,

HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; STACY WRIGHT, Corporal; KENYON BELL, Deputy; UNKNOWN ALDERMAN, Deputy; UNKNOWN WASHINGTON, Deputy; UNKNOWN CHILDS, Deputy; JOHN DOE, Deputy,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:02-CV-118-BN

--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ricky Johnson, formerly Mississippi inmate #38717, appeals the

magistr ate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Johnson alleged that while he was confined as a pre-trial detainee

in the Hinds County Detention Center, Corporal Wright, Deputy Bell,

and other deputies used excessive force against him and denied himNo. 03-60799 -2-

adequate medical treatment. Johnson alleged that he suffered

emotional and physical injuries, including a back injury from which

he still suffers.

We review findings of fact made following a bench trial for

clear error and legal conclusions de novo

. B aldwin v. Stalder
, 137

F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir. 1998). The burden of showing clear error

is heavier if the credibility of witnesses is a factor in the trial

court’s decision. Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co. , 220 F.3d 370,

375 (5th Cir. 2000).

A re view of the record, including the trial transcript,

establishes that the magistrate judge’s c redibility findings are

supported by the evidence. Johnson has not shown that the

m agistrate judge’s findings on his claims of excessive force and

denial of adequate medical treatment were clearly erroneous. See

Canal Barge Co. , 220 F.3d at 375. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### In re J.S.B., D.K.B., D.D.J., Z.A.T.J.

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(15 May 2007)

No. 269P07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1107)

2. Respondent’s (Mother) Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 06/11/07 361 N.C. 428

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. Denied 10/11/07
#### Early County *v.*Jones.

In order for a justice of the peace to be entitled to compensation for holding an inquest upon a dead body, he must make it affirmatively appear that he rendered the service under circumstances which gave him the legal right to act as coroner, namely, that there was no coroner in office or that he was absent from the county when needed or would not or could not take the inquest.

August 14, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Griggs. Early superior court. October term, 1893.

R. H. Sheffield and *W.*D. Kiddoo, for plaintiff in error. R. H. Powell & Son, *contra.*

Jones, a justice of the peace, sued the county for $10 for holding an inquest, and obtained a verdict and judgment which were sustained on *certiorari.*He was requested by a son of Lofton to go and hold an inquest on the body of Lofton, who had died by violence, and went nine miles to the place. He returned to Blakely, and hearing that no inquest had been held, ordered the sheriff to summon a jury, and proceeded again to the place to hold the inquest as desired. Por defendant, the coroner testified that he was in the county at the time, and could and would have held the inquest had he been informed of the death of Lofton.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michele Nakazawa, 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 untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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 

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

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

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

 

 

40
#### Richardson v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 240PA07

1. Def’s (NaüonsCredit) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-211)

2. Pits’ Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

1. Allowed as to Defs issues 1 and 2 only 07/19/07

2. Denied 07/19/07
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  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.
 COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName: Lee Ann AndersonTitle: Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate: May 10, 2007
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert Dépatie, President and Chief Executive Officer of Videotron Ltd. (the “Company”), certifythat:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Commission ReleasesNos.33-8238 (June 5, 2003) and 33-8618 (September 22, 2005)];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.Date: March 21, 2006       /s/ Robert Dépatie     Name: Robert Dépatie    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

### CERTIFICATION

 

I, Darryl R. Cohen, certify that:

 

1.         Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Ramp Corporation;

 

2.         Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: April 14, 2004

 

 

By:       /s/ Darryl R. Cohen                          

Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64302, 333-104071,333-118992, and 333-123364) pertaining to the Amended and Restated2000 Stock Option and Equity Incentive Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,1996 Stock Plan and 1992 Stock Option Plan of MoSys, Inc., of our reportdated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of MoSys, Inc., for the year ended December 31,2004 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.
|                      | * * | */s/ Ernst & Young LLP* |
|----------------------|----------|---------------------------------------|
| San Jose, California |     |                                  |
| March 12, 2007  |     |                                  |

 

----
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10918 Conference Calendar

FRANKIE LEE HOGG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-16-C

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frankie Lee Hogg appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Weyant v. Acceptance Ins. Co. , 917 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1990). We determine that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on Hogg’s claim that his prison trust fundaccount had been improperly seized.No. 95-10918 -2- This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is
DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. Hogg is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Hogg is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.
#### HSBC Mortgage Services, Respondent, v Iqbal Talip et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[975 NYS2d 887]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Iqbal *890Talip and Jessica Pooran appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered February 3, 2011, as denied those branches of their motion which were to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered September 24, 2010, upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, and (2) an order of the same court entered October 3, 2011, as denied those branches of their motion which were for leave to renew those branches of their prior motion which were to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered September 24, 2010, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, entered upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they failed to establish that the default judgment should be vacated in the interests of substantial justice (see *Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; *Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Dort-Relus,*107 AD3d 861, 862 [2013]; *Pritchard v Curtis,*101 AD3d 1502, 1504-1505 [2012]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for leave to renew those branches of their prior motion which were to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they did not demonstrate that there had been a change in the law that would change the prior determination *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Frenchman v Lynch,*97 AD3d 632, 633 [2012]; *Matter of DeRaffele Mfg. Co., Inc. v Kaloakas Mgt. Corp.,*48 AD3d 807, 809 [2008]). Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
Motion seeking interview with child and related relief denied.

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ali Shakur, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 898]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered March 28, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant challenges the evidence supporting the unlawful entry element *514of burglary. However, the evidence amply supported the conclusion that defendant knew he had been barred from entering the premises. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

Since defendant did not ask for any further relief after the court sustained his objection, he did not preserve his claim that certain testimony went beyond the scope of the court’s *Molineux*ruling *(see People v*Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s curative action was sufficient, and that the testimony was not unduly prejudicial in any event.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                             345
<SECURITIES>                                     1,985<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                      5,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,719
<PP&E>                                          12,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,762
<BONDS>                                         12,245
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,869
<SALES>                                         16,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,049
<CGS>                                           12,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,485<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                       372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       623
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.76
<FN>
<F1>Represents retained interest in transferred credit card receivables
<F2>Represents the sum of selling and administrative expense, depreciation and
amortization expense
</FN>


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-64302, 333-104071, 333-118992,and 333-123364) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Optionand Equity Incentive Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1996 Stock Planand 1992 Stock Option Plan of Monolithic System Technology, Inc., of ourreport dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Monolithic System Technology, Inc., for theyear ended December 31, 2004 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2005.
|                      | */s/ Ernst & Young LLP* |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|
| San Jose, California |                                  |
| March 13, 2006  |                                  |

 

----