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

### J. Twitty, Petitioner, 

### v. Eric Holder et aI., Respondents. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JAN 2 92010 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 

# 10 

# 0174

Petitioner Andre 

### J. Twitty has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus. The application will be granted and the petitionwill be dismissed. Twittyis a prisoner under sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia. He is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. His incoherentpetition briefly references several legal topics such as jurisdiction, estoppel, and the breadth ofthe writ ofhabeas corpus, but does not indicate how these subjects relate to his case. Conclusorily stating that it is the "courts themselves thathave rendered all ofpetitioner's prior attempts 'inadequate and ineffective,'" he alleges generally that his conviction was fraudulently obtained. Pet. at 3. Twitty concludes that he has "presented
more than enough evidence to establishhis actual innocence that entitleshim to immediate release." 

### Id. at 5 (punctuation altered). As a federal prisoner, Twitty's challenge to his conviction and detention must first be exhausted as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2255 lodged withthe sentencing court; onlythereafter,and only ifthe prisoner can showthat the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate orineffective, the challenge may be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus lodged in the district courtthat has personaljurisdiction overthe prisoner's immediate custodian. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 

### Wilson v. 

### Office a/Chairperson, Dist. a/ColumbiaBd. a/Parole, 892 F. Supp. 277, 279 (D.D.C. 1995) ("[A] decision on a § 2255 motion is ordinarily required before a federal court will entertain a habeas petition."); 

### Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 810 "[A] district court may not entertain a habeas corpus action unless it has personaljurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. ... Itis also well settled that the appropriate defendant in a habeas action is the custodian ofthe prisoner.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Itappears that Twitty is well aware ofthese remedies. 

### See Twitty v. 

### Wiley, 332 Fed. Appx. 523 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that since his conviction byjuryin 1999, "Twittyhas ... filed numerous petitions for reliefunder 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255."). As this Court does not have personaljurisdiction
over Twitty's immediate custodian, it does not havejurisdiction overthis habeas petition. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A separate order ofcompanies, this memorandum opinion.

Date:

## ~. 

## ,g) d..OjD

# ~**K~-** Jb.7JI United States District Judge F)

# '7

- 2 -
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: August 11, 2008
 
 *
    
    The Trust has no executive officers.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my 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;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during 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 control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material 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;
andb)
    
    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.
  Date:  August 10, 2009
    By:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President and Trust Administrator
Bank of America, N.A.
II 

Calendar No. 30 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 55 

[Report No. 109–19] 

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State 

of Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

MARCH 8, 2005 

Reported by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park 

in the State of Colorado. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rocky Mountain Na5 tional Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 55 RS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) FEDERAL PARCEL.—The term ‘‘Federal 

4 parcel’’ means the parcel of approximately 70 acres 

5 of Federal land near MacGregor Ranch, Larimer 

6 County, Colorado, as depicted on the map. 

7 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map 

8 numbered 121/80,154, dated June 2004. 

9 (3) NON-FEDERAL PARCELS.—The term ‘‘non10 Federal parcels’’ means the 3 parcels of non-Federal 

11 land comprising approximately 5.9 acres that are lo12 cated near MacGregor Ranch, Larimer County, Col13 orado, as depicted on the map. 

14 (4) PARK.—The term ‘‘Park’’ means Rocky 

15 Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado. 

16 SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY AD17 JUSTMENT. 

18 (a) EXCHANGE OF LAND.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall accept 

20 an offer to convey all right, title, and interest in and 

21 to the non-Federal parcels to the United States in 

22 exchange for the Federal parcel. 

23 (2) CONVEYANCE.—Not later than 60 days 

24 after the date on which the Secretary receives an 

25 offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall con-
3 

•S 55 RS

1 vey the Federal parcel in exchange for the non-Fed2 eral parcels. 

3 (3) CONSERVATION EASEMENT.—As a condition 

4 of the exchange of land under paragraph (2), the 

5 Secretary shall reserve a perpetual easement to the 

6 Federal parcel for the purposes of protecting, pre7 serving, and enhancing the conservation values of 

8 the Federal parcel. 

9 (b) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT; MANAGEMENT OF

10 LAND.—On acquisition of the non-Federal parcels under 

11 subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall— 

12 (1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect 

13 the acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and 

14 (2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of 

15 the Park, in accordance with any laws (including 

16 regulations) applicable to the Park. 
Calendar No. 30 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 55 

[Report No. 109–19] 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain 

National Park in the State of Colorado. 

MARCH 8, 2005 

Reported without amendment
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated: November 12,      2008   |  By:/s/      Shouquan Sun                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      | Shouquan      SunDirector,      Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting      Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Deer Consumer Products,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ying
He, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d));
and





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





By:
              /s/ Ying HeDate:
      June 18, 2010
              
              Ying
      He
                Chief
      Executive Officer





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enrique MENDOZA-SANTIAGO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-10506.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 28, 2006.

Monte C. Clausen, AUSA, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Eric Herberg, Esq., FPDAZ-Fed-eral Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Enrique Mendoza-Santiago appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza-Santiago contends that his sentence is unreasonable under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court failed to appropriately eon-sider his history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court reasonably considered the advisory Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered Mendoza-Santiago’s criminal history, his ties to the United States, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to afford deterrence and protect the public, and imposed a sentence that was sufficient but no greater than necessary to comply with § 3553(a). *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

The district court properly rejected Mendoza-Santiago’s contentions regarding the larger context of United States border enforcement as irrelevant to Mendoza-Santiago’s own conduct, and did not err in considering these contentions insubstantial with regard to § 3553(a). Accordingly, Mendoza-Santiago’s sentence is not unreasonable. *See Plouffe,*445 F.3d at 1131.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM A. OWENS, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2004 ofNortel Networks Corporation; 2. Based on 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, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: March 18, 2005   /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENS     WILLIAM A. OWENS  Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jacqueline McCovey, Appellant, v Dionne Williams, Doing Business as Clip and Curl Beauty Parlor, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 690]

In an action to recover damages for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 21, 2011, as granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On June 2, 2006, the plaintiff was a patron of the Clip and Curl Beauty Parlor when she allegedly was attacked by Christopher Morgan, who, she alleged in the complaint, was “an employee, lessee, tenant, partner, or agent” of the defendant. She commenced the instant action against the defendant, Dionne Williams, doing business as Clip and Curl Beauty Parlor, but did not sue Morgan directly. In support of her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant submitted her own affidavit and an affidavit from Morgan. The affidavits established that Morgan was not an employee, lessee, tenant, partner, or agent of the defendant.

The plaintiff, in opposition, and in support of her cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint, raised a new theory of liability: that the defendant was negligent in that she failed to exercise her duty of reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on her premises *(see Kranenberg v TKRS Pub, Inc.,*99 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]). A plaintiff may successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action which is supported by the plaintiff’s proof *(see Lombardo v Mastec N. Am., Inc.,*68 AD3d 935 [2009]; *Boyle v*
      *820
      *Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.,*50 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2008]; *Lai v Gartlan,*46 AD3d 237, 243 [2007]). However, in the instant case, the plaintiff’s submission in support of the unpleaded cause of action was an affirmation of an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts. That affirmation was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the allegations in the plaintiffs pleadings *(see e.g. Wolf son v Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.,*67 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2009]). Since the plaintiff submitted no evidence in admissible form in support of the unpleaded cause of action, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Balkin, J.R, Leventhal, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Allied Healthcare International
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Timothy M. Aitken, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as at and for the year ended September 30, 2002.

Date:  December 6, 2002


                                      /s/ Timothy M. Aitken
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Timothy M. Aitken
                                     Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
                                     Officer of the Company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           23193
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           17516
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      86657
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           32514
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             33108
<LOANS>                                         365861
<ALLOWANCE>                                       5212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  548005
<DEPOSITS>                                      480001
<SHORT-TERM>                                        50
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              14236
<LONG-TERM>                                       3087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6854
<OTHER-SE>                                       43777
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  548005
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  16578
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3701
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   131
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 20410
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                8121
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8352
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            12058
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      495
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   9770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5141
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3494
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   8.750
<LOANS-NON>                                        538
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2751
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5062
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      452
<RECOVERIES>                                       107
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 5212
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              5212
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>