alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32(c)**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officerof Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that to my knowledge:

(i)     The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)    Theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Baltimore Gas and ElectricCompany.
| /s/ KENNETH W. DEFONTES, JR.     |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr.         |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Date: February 27,2007

----
----

Exhibit 32.2

MPHASE TECHNOLGIES, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhaseTechnologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q forthe quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, Martin S. Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

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

2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, I all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Martin S. Smiley

Martin S. SmileyChief Financial Officer

February 13, 2008

----
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summit Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 12th day of January, 2007.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **
Samuel Moses Williams July 14, 2015

TDC # 1997053

Gurney Unit

1385 FM 3328

Tennessee Colony, Texas 75803

 Re: Your Appeal to the 6th Court of Appeals

 At Texarkana from the 8th Judicial District 

 Texas with case # 06-15-00086

Dear Mr. Williams:

 I am the attorney appointed by Judge Eddie Northcutt the write you appeal 

From the four convictions you received from the 8th District Court setting at 

Sulphur Springs, Texas.

 I have reviewed the Clerks Record and the Trial Record in all four cases that 

you were convicted on and can not find an error that would reverse your case so 

that you could get the indictments dismissed or a new trial.

 Accordingly I have filed a Anders Brief that says this. This is not good news 

for you, however you now have the opportunity to review the Clerks Record and 

Trial Record yourself and/ or with people at your place of incarceration to see if 

you or someone can help you there to try and find errors that might give you relief 

from your four convictions.

 I am enclosing the Clerks Record and Trial Record in cases 1424392, 

1424393, 1424394 and 1424395 on which your were convicted by the jury and 

sentenced by the court in the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas.

 A copy of the Brief that I have filed with the 6th Court of Appeals setting at 

Texarkana is also enclosed.

 Sincerely,

 

 /s/ Charles E. Perry

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/14/2015 2:59:58 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
 /
July 9, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EVELYN DELECATAVE, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00327-CV V.

WINDCREST ON WESTVIEW, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 6, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Evelyn Delecatave.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARA VARGAS RAMIREZ; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73156 

Agency Nos. A208-930-455 

A208-930-456 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Sara Vargas Ramirez and her minor child, natives and citizens of Mexico, 

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 

their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-73156 

Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 

for review. 

As to asylum and withholding of removal, petitioners fail to challenge in 

their opening brief the BIA’s determination that they did not establish past 

persecution and that they waived before the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s future 

persecution finding. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 

waived). Petitioners also fail to challenge the BIA’s determination that they 

waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Id. Thus, petitioners’ 

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not meaningfully address 

the issues raised.

We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination and corroborative evidence because the BIA did not reach those 

issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(review limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA). We lack jurisdiction to 
3 18-73156 

consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights because 

they failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 11-41373 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE SANTOS CARRILLO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-659-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Santos Carrillo-Martinez (C a r r i llo) appeals his 72-month s entence followed by a three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction to being an alien found unlawfully in the United States. Carrillo argues that the district court plainly e rred in imposing a 16-level enhancement of his o ffense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based o n a prior crime of violence conviction because the G overnment failed to show b y a preponderance of the e vidence t ha t his prior offense encompassed the e lements of a generic U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May15, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 11-41373 Document: 00512242583 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2013No. 11-41373

burglary offense. He contends that the Texas b urglary s tatute contains a unique elem e n t t h at includes a lawful entry onto property without the consent of a person who has a greater r ight to possession of the property than the actor. We have recently rejected a similar argument. See United States v. M orales-Mota , 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013). Thus, the district court did not commit error, plain or other w i s e , i n making the enhancement. See id.; United States v. Puckett , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Asserting that his sentence w as procedur a l l y and substantively unreasonable, Carrillo argues that the district court erred in imposing a term of supervised release contrary to the guideline recommendation that “ordinarily”

a term o f supervised release would not b e impos e d i f t h e defendant is a deportable alien. Review i s for plain error because Carrillo did not object in the distr i c t c o u r t to the imposition of the term of supervised r elease. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. The district court’s explanation reflected the consideration of relevant sentencing factors and provided a justification for imposing the term of supervised release. The district court did not err, plainly o r o t h erwise, in imposing t he three-year term o f s u pervised release. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado , 6 95 F .3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 201 2 )

. ; P u c kett , 556 U.S. at 135. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-41373 Document: 00512242583 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
AECEIVED IN O6-£5- O0%/- ER

Mark Eugene Engle The vurt of Appeals § Case No. »
Sixth District
Relator jue 13 208 § In the 6th Court of Appeals
,§ at Texarkana, Texas
7 2s Texas FILED IN
Leabra Autrey, Cle The Court of Appeals

Sixth District
‘JUL 1 3 2015

Texarkana, Texas
'Deébraik. Autrey, Clerk

Now Comes Mark Eugene Engle, Relator, Pro-Se, and brings this Motion in Good Faith

Motion for Writ of Error

Honorable Justices,

seeking to compel this Honorable Court:to move the 354th district Court, namely Honorable
Judge Beacom- to supplement the Appellate Record with ALL proceedings had. Pre-Indictment
under Writ #07259 in Cause Ne. 29110 by issuing a Writ of Error. Relator brings this motion

by [T.R.A.P. 10.1].

I.
In Mandamus #06-15-00111-CR, received and filed on July 6,2015, Relator has established

there is a remediable error in the record and it is this Honorable Courts discretion to

correct the record. [T.R.A.P. 44.4].

Il.

Relator bases this motion on the need for a full record for Appellate review, so that
this Honorable Court can Address every issue raised and neccessary to final disposition

of the Appeal. [T.R.A.P. 47.1]

Til.
It is in the power of this Honorable Court of competent jurisdiction to make any

Order: appropriate that the law and the nature of the case require. [T.R.A.P. 43.6]

(1)


Prayer
Relator prays that this Honorable Court will issue a Writ of Error to the 354th
District Court for ALL records of proceedings under Writ #07259. And any other relief deem

just.

Certificate of Service

Ye Fpl,
Qn this /0 day of uly 2015 Mark Eugene Engle sent this motion for Writ of

Error to the Clerk of the Sixth Gourt of Appeals*tin iTexarkana,.from the Connally Unit, 899

F.M. 632, Kenedy Texass78119.

Sincepely Submitted,

Mark Eugene Engle

9-10-15—

Unsworn Declaration
Everything contained in this motion for Writ of Error is true and correct under

penalty of prejury to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

Yrh 3 Submitted,

Mark Eugene Engle

7-10 -/5—
### N U M B ER 13- 09- 00565- C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____________________________________________________________ C I TY O F P H AR R , TE X AS , AP P E L L AN T,
v . S T E P H A N IE D A V IS G O W E R , A P P E L L E E .

____________________________________________________________

O n A p p e a l f r o m t h e C o u n t yC o u r t a t L a w N o . 1

of H i dal go C ount y , T exas.

____________________________________________________________



## ME MO R A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e C hi ef

Just i ce Val dez and Just i ces Ben av i des and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Ci ty

of Phar r, Tex as, per

fected an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered by the County

Cour t at LawNo. 1 of Hi dal g o C ounty , Tex as, i n c ause number C L- 08- 2999- A. Th e pa rties have f iled a joint waiv er of f urthe r appe al rig hts an d request for issuance of manda te on g ro unds that the par ti es no lon g er desi re to appeal any p o rt io n of the2

order the subj ectof thi s a ppeal

. The par ti es requ estthatthi s C our t di smi ss the appeal and i ss ue i ts mandate. The Co urt, hav ing co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e and the j o intmoti on to dis mis s t he appe al, i s o f the o p in io n t h at t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( a)

. Appel lan t’ s mo ti o n t o di smi ss i s g ra nted, and the a ppeal i s h ereby DI SM ISSE D. C ost s w il l be ta xed a gai n st appel lan t. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d) ("Ab sentagreeme nt of the pa rties, the co u rtwi ll ta x costs against th e ap pellan t." ). Hav ing di smi ss ed th e appea l at t he par ti es’ req ues t, no mot ion for rehear ing w il l be enter tai ned. The par ti es re que sti m m e dia te i ss uance of our mandate

. Rul e of Appel lat e Proced ure 18 .1(c) auth oriz es the early issuance of

man dat e on the m otion of the pa rties. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 18. 1( c)

. W e g ra nt t he j oin t motion

. W e d irectthe Cl er k o f the C our t t o is s u e t h e m a n d a t e im m e d ia t e ly.

PERC UR IAM Del iv ered and filed the 29th day of Apr il , 201 0.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1841-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1841-DR), dated May 29, 2009, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 29, 2009.

    Magoffin County for Individual Assistance (already designated 
for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-14274 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
June 6, 2013



## JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RANDI GOLDBERG , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 01091

- CV V.

TRACY ZINN , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Tracy Zinn, signed October 24, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of
the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, Randi Goldberg, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Purvis Ray CARTWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20553

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Purvis Ray Cartwright, Federal Correctional Institution Beaumont-Low, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Purvis Ray Cartwright, federal prisoner #59478-079, appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his motion to modify his sentence, purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B).

The Government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Cartwright’s motion to modify. As the Government notes, “ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)(2)(B)” *468does not exist. A district court may modify the imposed term of imprisonment under limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Because Cartwright’s motion did not fall under any of the provisions of § 3582(c), it was unauthorized and without jurisdictional basis. *United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, it cannot be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, because Cartwright has already filed one § 2255 motion and a second would be subject to the jurisdictional bar of the successive-motion provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). *See United States v. Key,*205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.2000). Because Cartwright’s appeal is without arguable merit, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Cartwright is hereby warned that any further repetitious or frivolous filings, including those attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255 motions, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
Order filed December 3, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00693-CV

____________

JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellant

V.

21333 INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee

and

21333 INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellant

V.

JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-67138

ORDER

The parties filed an agreed motion to set the number, due dates, and word 

limits of the briefs in this matter. Their motion is granted. The parties will be 

permitted to file the following briefs:

(1)John Gannon, Inc.’s (Gannon) opening brief is due February 2, 2021 and 

not to exceed 15,000 words;
(2)21333 Investments, Inc.’s (Investments) opening brief and responsive 

brief is due 30 days after Gannon’s opening brief is filed and not to 

exceed 19,500 words in the aggregate with neither subpart to exceed 

15,000 words;

(3)Gannon’s responsive brief and reply brief (if any) is due 20 days after 

Investments’ opening brief is filed and not to exceed 12,000 words in the 

aggregate with the Reply subpart of the brief not to exceed 7,500; and

(4)Investments’ reply brief (if any) is due 20 days after Gannon’s responsive 

brief is filed and not to exceed 7,500 words. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
#### CANTY v. GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION.

Civil No. 806.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Nov. 27, 1941.

S. E. Sampliner, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Russell V. Bleecker, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Motion by plaintiff to inspect the vessel upon which the alleged injury occurred and for permission to photograph that portion of the vessel where the alleged injury occurred.

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides: “Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, the court in which an action is pending may * * * (2). order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. * * * ”

Defendant objects to allowing plaintiff an inspection and right to photograph certain portions of the vessel on the ground that more than two years have passed since the occurrence of the alleged accident. The court is not now passing on the admissibility of any evidence that may be obtained if the inspection and photographing were allowed. The court is only to determine the right of the plaintiff to make an inspection and to take photographs of relevant objects of property within the control of the defendant. Rule 34 should be liberally construed and motion is granted allowing plaintiff to inspect and photograph that portion of the vessel where plaintiff is alleged to have been injured.