alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Larry JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Larry Johnson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Larry Johnson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Larry Johnson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Larry Johnson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 05-35374 to 05-35378.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

*586Larry Johnson, Fall Creek, OR, pro se.

Timothy W. Simmons, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mark O. Hatfield, Portland, OR, Margaret M. Ogden, U.S. Dept of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, Seatac, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

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 **

In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals *pro se*the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions for failure to comply with a court order, failure to prosecute, and mootness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court.

We conclude that Johnson’s petitions are not moot because, at the time of the district court’s order, he was on home confinement and, in any event, he is now on supervised release. *See Matus-Leva v. United States,*287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002).

However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petitions. It is uncontested that, in its November order, the district court instructed Johnson to file a consolidated habeas petition by March 1, 2005. The record shows that Johnson did not comply with the district court’s order. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petitions. *See James v. Madison St. Jail,*122 F.3d 27, 27 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).

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 32.1

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

In connection with this Annual Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Downey Bridgwater, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |     |  |                                                                          
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 23, 2010 |  | by: |  | /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater                                                 
|                         |  |     |  | J. Downey Bridgwater                                                     
|                         |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Sterling Bancshares, Inc.
EXHIBIT 2



NEWMONT YANDAL OPERATIONS LIMITED

VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS



(A$000)



|                                              |  | Balance at beginning of year |  | Additions charged to costs and expenses |   |  | Charged to other accounts |  | Deductions |  | Balance at end of year
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------- | - |  | ------------------------- |  | ---------- |  | ----------------------
|Description                                   |  |                              |  |                                         |   |  |                           |  |            |  |                       
|                                             
|Year ended June 30, 2002                     
|                                             
|Future income tax benefit valuation allowance |  | 5,900                        |  | 43,600                                  |   |  |                           |  |            |  | 49,500                
|Provision for doubtful debts                  |  | 600                          |  | 6,491                                   |   |  |                          |  |           |  | 7,091                 
|                                              |  | 6,500                        |  | 50,091                                  |   |  |                          |  |           |  | 56,591                
|                                             
|Year ended June 30, 2001                     
|                                             
|Future income tax benefit valuation allowance |  | 54,700                       |  | (48,800                                 | ) |  |                           |  |            |  | 5,900                 
|Provision for doubtful debts                  |  |                             |  | 600                                     |   |  |                          |  |           |  | 600                   
|                                              |  | 54,700                       |  | (48,200                                 | ) |  |                          |  |           |  | 6,500                 
|                                              |  |                              |  |                                         |   |  |                           |  |            |  |                       
|                                             
|Year ended June 30, 2000                     
|                                             
|Future income tax benefit valuation allowance |  | 73,321                       |  | (18,621                                 | ) |  |                           |  |            |  | 54,700                
|Provision for doubtful debts                  |  |                             |  |                                        |   |  |                          |  |           |  |                      
|                                              |  | 73,321                       |  | (18,621                                 | ) |  |                          |  |           |  | 54,700
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARLYLE EDGAR COLEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-93-20, CA-96-840-R)

Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlyle Edgar Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlyle Edgar Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998) and his motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P.

59. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Coleman, Nos. CR-93-20;

CA-96-840-R (W.D. Va. May 16 & May 28, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Jimmy G. NIXON, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe YOUNG; Ms. Endenfield; Shawn Million; K. Schwinn; R. Poole; Mr. McClain; Does 1-10, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-30070

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Jimmy Nixon, Anthony, NM, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jimmy G. Nixon, Sr., federal prisoner # 12863-116, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction. Nixon challenged his conviction and sentence for mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and illegal monetary transactions.

Nixon has not argued, much less shown, that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 900-01, 904 (5th Cir.2001); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2470 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2470

             To renew the suspension of duty on Prodiamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To renew the suspension of duty on Prodiamine.

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

SECTION 1. PRODIAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Prodiamine (2,6-dinitro-
N1,N1-dipropyl-4- (trifluoromethyl)-1,3-benzenediamine) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and by inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350of Chapter 63**

**of Title 18 of the United StatesCode**

 

I,John E. Rooney, the chief executive officer of United States CellularCorporation, certify that (i) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe second quarter of 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United States CellularCorporation.

 

 
|   | /s/  John E. Rooney  |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | John  E. Rooney      |
|   | August 6,  2009 |

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to United States Cellular Corporation and will beretained by U.S. Cellular and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# Biblioteca multimedia

¡Comparta nuestro contenido multimedia! Haga clic en la imagen para ver el código incrustable o haga clic en un icono para compartir. La información en nuestro sitio web es de dominio público, pero le agradeceremos que le dé el crédito correspondiente al Instituto Nacional de la Sordera y Otros Trastornos de la Comunicación, Institutos Nacionales de la Salud.

## Multimedia destacada

¿Cómo el cuerpo humanoproduce la voz y el habla?

## Filtro de multimedia
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
periodic report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hemant Khemka, Corporate
Controller 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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: March 22, 2013 |  | /s/ Hemant Khemka                                         
|                      |  | Hemant Khemka Corporate
Controller Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6830** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DUAN A. SOMERS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:00

- cr - 00360

- TSE

- 4 )

Submitted : August 26 , 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Duan A. Somers, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle C. Brice, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Duan A. Somers app eals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its previous order granting Somers’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. The district court’s order reducing Somers’ sentence was entered on March 20, 2008. In August 20 08, Somers filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, that the district court denied. As the district court lacked the authority to grant reconsideration of its previous order, United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010 ), cert. denied , 2 010 WL 2151021 (U.S. June 28, 2010), we affirm the district court’s order denying reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in t he decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 10.55


                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                 1998 RESTATEMENT OF THE HA-LO INDUSTRIES, INC.
                               401(k) SAVINGS PLAN

         WHEREAS, HA-LO Industries, Inc. (the "Company") established and
maintains the HA-LO Industries, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") for the
benefit of its eligible employees; and

         WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is now considered desirable;

         WHEREAS, the power to amend the Plan is reserved to the Company under
Section 11.1 of the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan is hereby amended,
effective as provided herein, in the following particulars:

         1. Effective January 1, 1999, by adding to the end of Section 3.1 of
the Plan the following:

         Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, each
         Participant in the Plan immediately prior to January 1, 1999 shall
         continue to be a Participant in the Plan on and after January 1, 1999
         subject to the limitations of the Plan. Effective January 1, 1999, each
         other Employee shall become an Active Participant on the first Entry
         Date on or following the date he attains age 21 and completes three
         months of service with a Related Entity, provided he is still an
         Employee on such date.

                  For Plan eligibility purposes, service prior to January 1,
         1999 shall be counted for each sales representative for a Related
         Entity who was an independent contractor or who was employed by a
         corporation and in such capacity provided sales services to a Related
         Entity, as determined by the Plan Administrator in a uniform and
         nondiscriminatory manner.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Dragan Boscic, Respondent.

Submitted September 13, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion by New York State Defenders Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION
                              ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES


1.  ABC DOOR CORPORATION                        PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2.  BRF DOOR CORPORATION                        BOCA RATON, FLORIDA
3.  CENTRAL NEBRASKA, INC.                      HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
4.  CNC DOOR COMPANY                            CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
5.  DALLAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC.               DALLAS, TEXAS
6.  ETX DOOR COMPANY                            EL PASO, TEXAS
7.  GMI HOLDINGS INC. DBA THE GENIE COMPANY     ALLIANCE, OHIO
      GENIE EXPORT CO. FSC LTD.                 VIRGIN ISLANDS
8.  HORTON AUTOMATICS, LTD.                     TELFORD, ENGLAND
9.  MORE DOOR COMPANY                           LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
10. OHD CORPORATION                             DALLAS, TEXAS
11. TFL DOOR CORPORATION                        TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
12. XYZ DOOR COMPANY                            FORT WORTH, TEXAS
Untitled Page


		

			

			

			Exhibit 10.7

				

			

		

		
			AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

					CLASS A SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

					

				

		

		
			          The following provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part of, that certain Class A Senior Secured Convertible Debenture dated September 23, 2003, and that certain Amendment to Class A Senior Secured Convertible Debenture dated October 27, 2006 (collectively, the “Debenture”) between Material Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Palisades Capital, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (the “Holder”) and such provisions are effective retroactively to the date of the Debenture (the “Effective Date”).  All capitalized terms in this Amendment to Debenture, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Debenture.

				

				1.       The Maturity Date shall be extended to December 31, 2010.

				

				2.       The following language is added to the requirement that Robert M. Bernstein execute a Stockholder Lockup Agreement, and Holder shall consent to such language being included, in substantially the same form, in an amendment to such Lockup Agreement:

				

			

		

		
			
				Notwithstanding the foregoing, after the Company has successfully raised at least $2,500,000 in financing, Robert M. Bernstein may sell up to $2,500,000 worth of his shares in an arm’s length transaction with a third-party, at a discount of no more than 50% of the lowest closing bid price for the ten prior trading days, without restriction and without the necessity of the buyer thereof becoming subject to this Lockup Agreement.

			

		

		3.       All other provisions of the Debenture remain unchanged.

			

			          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to Debenture to be duly executed and delivered as of October 10, 2007.

			

			COMPANY:                                                               HOLDER:

				

			MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,                   PALISADES CAPITAL, LLC,

			a Delaware corporation                                                a Nevada limited liability company

			

			

			/s/ Robert M. Bernstein                                                 /s/ Reid Breitman                                              

			By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                              By:  Reid Breitman

			Its:  Chief Executive Officer                                           Its:  President
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CFO



In connection with the Annual Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen A. Thorington, 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:



To the best of my knowledge, after
reasonable investigation:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 22, 2005.



/s/ Stephen A. ThoringtonStephen A. ThoringtonChief Financial Officer