alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus DE LA TORRE-MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41855.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

Randall A. Blake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Jackson Herrington Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Jesus De La Torre-Molina (De La Torre) has filed a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). De La Torre has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Fnu SUWILOWATI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, David Kelley, Edward J. McElroy, Respondents.

No. 04-1551-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

*44James J. Orlow, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, Anne R. Schultz, Laura Thomas Rivero, Kathleen M. Salyer, Assistant United States, Attorneys, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, and Hon. JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, and Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Fnu Suwilowati, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a March 2, 2004 order of the BIA denying a motion to reconsider its August 20, 2003 order affirming the November 22, 2000 decision of immigration judge (“IJ”) Annette Elstein denying Suwilowati’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. *In re Fnu Suwilowati,*No. *A77*718 574 (B.I.A. March 2, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *See Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider “requests that the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” *Matter of Cerna,*20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 n. 2, 1991 WL 353528 (BIA 1991). In her motion to reconsider, Suwilowati presented the same arguments that she had presented to the BIA on direct appeal of the IJ’s decision, upon which the BIA determined that the record supported the IJ’s pretermittance of her asylum application and denial of her claim for withholding of removal. Because Suwilowati did not present any new arguments to the BIA in her motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing *Strato v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir.2004)).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

		NO. 2-08-248-CV

PARKER COUNTY VETERINARY	APPELLANTS

CLINIC, INC., D/B/A PARKER COUNTY

VETERINARY HOSPITAL, INC., 

PAT JARRETT, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND JARRETT PROPERTIES, LLC

	V.

GSBS BATENHORST, INC.	APPELLEE

	------------

	FROM THE 43RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellants Parker County Veterinary Clinic, Inc., d/b/a Parker County Veterinary Hospital, Inc., Pat Jarrett, Individually, and Jarrett Properties, LLC seek to appeal from the trial court’s May 14, 2008 order granting GSBS Batenhorst, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.

	On June 17, 2008, this court informed appellants of its concern that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order complained of did not dispose of all parties in the case, and does not appear to be a final appealable interlocutory order.2  Additionally, the trial court confirmed that no severance order has been signed severing appellants’ case against GSBS Batenhorst, Inc. from appellants’ case against the other defendants.  

	We directed appellants to submit a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before Friday, June 27, 2008, or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.3  Appellants have failed to file a response as requested.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.4 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 7, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         212,435
<SECURITIES>                                   158,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,894,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,707,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,285,825
<PP&E>                                       1,755,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                 921,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,256,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,099,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,754
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,256,755
<SALES>                                     12,538,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,538,462
<CGS>                                        7,188,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,492,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                878,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   878,012
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)



</TABLE>
CASEY TATE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2732

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 24, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Dawn Caloca-Johnson, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, 

Assistant Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
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 Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of Wolverine
Tube, Inc., 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 and belief:

(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.

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



/s/ David A. OwenDavid A. OwenSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDecember 30, 2008
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40791

Conference Calendar

 

FRANTZ OSCAR,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CV-121

--------------------

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frantz Oscar, federal prisoner No. 25832-083, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenging his convictions and life sentences for engaging in a

continuing criminal enterprise (CCE). 

Oscar argues that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause

authorizes him to seek relief under § 2241 because defects in the

indictment deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to convict

him of the CCE charges. Oscar’s jurisdictional argument is
No. 01-40791

-2-

** 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

without merit. See United States v. Cotton, 122 S. Ct. 1781,

1785-86 (2002); United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367 (5th

Cir.) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Oct. 10, 2002)

(No. 02-6898). 

Oscar argues that Apprendi v. New Jersey** dictates that he

is actually innocent of the CCE charges because the indictment

did not allege quantities of drugs adequate to support a

conviction and sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 848(b)(2)(A). Oscar’s

arguments concerning § 848(b)(2)(A) are irrelevant because he was

not convicted of violating that section of the CCE statute. 

Oscar was convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal

enterprise in violation of § 848(a), (c), and of two counts of

murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise in

violation of § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Oscar’s life

sentences do not violate Apprendi because they are within the

statutory maximum for his CCE convictions. United States v.

Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S.

1182 (2001); see § 848 (a), (e)(1)(A). Furthermore, Apprendi

does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review and an

Apprendi claim does not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255's savings clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary,

Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2002). 
No. 01-40791

-3-

*** 526 U.S. 813 (1999).

We note that Oscar has abandoned any argument that he is

entitled to § 2241 relief based on Richardson v. Unites States.

***

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         EARTHWORKS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

   Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
         (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Peter Keefe,  Chief Executive  Officer,  and President  "principal  executive
officer") of Earthworks Entertainemnt, Inc. (the "Registrant"),  certify that to
the best of my knowledge,  based upon a review of the  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

      (1)  The  Report  fully   complies  with  the   requirements   of  Section
      13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: May 14, 2004       /s/ PETER KEEFE
                        ---------------------
                          Peter Keefe
                          Chief Executive Officer, and President
#### In the Matter of Tomas Muniz, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 667]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. He was found guilty as charged following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and that determination was upheld in relevant part upon administrative review. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who tested petitioner’s urine and authored the report, and the positive drug tests themselves provide substantial evidence to support the determination *(see Matter of Mannino v Fischer,*102 AD3d 1032, 1032 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 855 [2013]; *Matter of Xao He Lu v New York State Dept. of Corrections,*72 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2010]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the officer’s testimony further established that the testing equipment was calibrated and working properly when the tests were performed *(see Matter of Van*
      *1045
      *Dusen v Selsky,*14 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Considering this officer’s testimony, petitioner’s request to call a representative of the manufacturer of the device was appropriately denied *(see Matter of Hill v Smith,*73 AD3d 1418, 1419 [2010]; *Matter of Graziano v Selsky,*9 AD3d 752, 753 [2004]).

Peters, EJ., Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Danielle Muscatello, on Behalf of Kareem Davis, Petitioner, v Dora B. *861Schriro, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 356]

— Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for the release of Kareem Davis pursuant to CPL 30.30 (2) (a) upon Queens County indictment No. 2049/12.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The People are chargeable with less than 90 days of delay in bringing Kareem Davis to trial on Queens County indictment No. 2049/12 (see CPL 30.30 [2] [a]; *People v Robinson,*47 AD3d 847 [2008]; *cf. People v Wearen,*98 AD3d 535 [2012]; *People v Rahim,*91 AD3d 970 [2012]). Accordingly, Kareem Davis is not entitled to release pursuant to CPL 30.30 (2) (a), and the writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. Balkin, J.E, Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Fund.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc. as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           April 6, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

                           Section 302 Certifications

I, Jim Miller, certify that:

         1.       I have  reviewed this  quarterly  report on form 10-QSB of CNH
                  Holdings Company.

         2.       Based on my knowledge,  this quarterly report does not contain
                  any untrue  statement  of a  material  fact or omit to state a
                  material fact necessary to make the statements  made, in light
                  of the  circumstances  under which such  statements were made,
                  not  misleading  with  respect to the  period  covered by this
                  quarterly report.

         3.       Based on my  knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other
                  financial  information  included  in  this  quarterly  report,
                  fairly   present  in  all  material   respects  the  financial
                  condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  the
                  registrant  as of,  and for,  the  periods  presented  in this
                  quarterly report;

         4.       I am responsible for establishing  and maintaining  disclosure
                  controls  and  procedures  (as defined in  Exchange  Act Rules
                  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a)       Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared.

         b)       Evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure
                  controls and  procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing  date of this  quarterly  report  (the  "Evaluation
                  Date"); and

         c)       Presented in this quarterly  report our conclusions  about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5.       I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the
                  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
                  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
                  functions):

         a)       All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation of
                  internal   controls   which   could   adversely   affect   the
                  registrant's ability to record, process,  summarize and report
                  financial  data  and  have  identified  for  the  registrant's
                  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b)       Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management
                  or  other  employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the
                  registrant's internal controls; and


Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ Jim Miller
Jim Miller
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11.3

                       EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                       FULLY DILUTED COMPUTATION
      FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996
           (IN MILLIONS EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


                          Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                               March 31,                March 31,
                       -----------------------  ----------------------
                           1997         1996        1997        1996
                       -----------  ----------- ----------- -----------
Basis for computation of
 fully diluted earnings
 per share:

  Earnings before extra-
   ordinary item, as
   reported            $     39.1  $     (8.3)  $    116.2 $     77.9
  Add interest charges
   on convertible debt        -           1.8          -          5.4
  Less provision for taxes    -           (.7)         -         (2.1)
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Earnings before extra-
  ordinary item, as
   adjusted                  39.1        (7.2)       116.2       81.2

  Extraordinary charge
   - debt retirement          -           -            8.1        -
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------

  Net earnings applicable
   to common stock     $     39.1  $     (7.2)  $    108.1 $     81.2
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

Number of shares:

  Weighted average
   shares outstanding  96,335,522  93,347,935   95,090,359 92,673,346
  Conversion of
   convertible sub-
   ordinated notes
   into common stock          -     3,620,354          -    3,621,418
  Additional common
   stock equivalents          -           -            -       61,671
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Total common and
   common equivalent
   shares assuming
   full dilution       96,335,522  96,968,289   95,090,359 96,356,435
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

Fully diluted earnings
 per share:

  Earnings before
  extraordinary item   $      .41  $     (.07)  $     1.22 $      .84
  Extraordinary charge
   - debt retirement          -          -            (.09)      -
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Net earnings         $      .41  $     (.07)  $     1.13 $      .84
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
601(b)(11).  However, under APB Opinion No. 15, calculation of fully
diluted earnings per share would exclude the conversion of convertible
securities which would have an antidilutive effect on earnings per
share for each period.
EXHIBIT 32.2  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Annual Report of International Barrier Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Corcoran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: October 7, 2010  /s/ David Corcoran David Corcoran Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Endocrine Diseases - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490762887828401" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>