alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of: Morry WAKSBERG, M.D., Debtor, *614Morry Waksberg, M.D., Appellant, v. Levene, Neale, Bender, Rankin & Brill L.L.P., Appellees.

No. 09-56406.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 4, 2011.

Mitchell Keiter, Esquire, Irvine, CA, for Appellant.

Todd M. Arnold, Esquire, Levene, Nea-le, Bender, Yoo *&*Brill L.L.P., Los Ange-les, CA, for Appellees.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The individual, Morry Waksberg, M.D., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting Levene, Neale, Bender, Rankin & Brill L.L.P.’s application for compensation in underlying Chapter 7 proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons),*920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir.1990). We vacate and remand.

The district court’s dismissal of the appeal was based on its determination that, despite its previous order to show cause detailing Waksberg’s procedural obligations and its extension of time for compliance, Waksberg had never filed a Statement of the Issues in the bankruptcy court. However, Waksberg filed a Statement of the Issues in the bankruptcy court by the final deadline the district court had imposed. Although the Statement’s caption contained the case number for a related bankruptcy case, causing it to be filed in that separate case, it also prominently bore the case numbers for the bankruptcy and district court cases on appeal here. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Waks-berg, who was proceeding pro se at the time, failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8006. *See Brookfield Communs. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,*174 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.1999) (a district court necessarily abuses its discretion where it bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous finding of fact).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Waksberg’s motion for reconsideration.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Bernard J. Tanenbaum III    
|Chief Executive Officer     

May 15, 2009
#### Ellen Reilly Castillo et al., Appellants, v Aubuchon Hardware, Defendant, and H & W Hardware Company et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[854 NYS2d 113]

*396Plaintiffs were required to prove that the step stool from which plaintiff Ellen Reilly Castillo allegedly fell did not perform as intended and to exclude causes for the failure not attributable to defendants *(see Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]). In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants relied on plaintiffs deposition testimony that she used the step stool without incident for several years preceding her fall, and her inability to identify anything defective or dangerous about the step stool, and the expert opinion of a licensed professional engineer who examined the step stool and performed tests on two exemplars thereof and concluded that any damage to plaintiffs step stool was the result and not the cause of plaintiffs fall *(see Ramirez v Miller,*29 AD3d 310, 313-314 [2006]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the expert’s supplemental affidavit was not an overt attempt to cure deficiencies in defendants’ prima facie showing *(see Scansarole v Madison Sq. Garden, L.P.,*33 AD3d 517 [2006]), which included the expert’s first affidavit containing his opinion, based on initial testing, that the step stool was not defective and that the damage to it was consistent with being struck by plaintiffs body.

Plaintiffs testimony that the step stool “gave way” is insufficient to raise an inference that there was a manufacturing defect and that the cause of the damage to the step stool was not plaintiffs fall but a cause attributable to defendants *(see Speller,*100 NY2d at 41). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1; 6:14-cv-04515-HMH)

Submitted: July 7, 2015 Decided: July 17, 2015

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ross Tannenbaum, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ross Tannenbaum        
|    |  | Ross Tannenbaum            
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
|    |  | July 14, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of comment period.

# SUMMARY:

                        The DOE published on November 26, 2008, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , a notice of inquiry concerning technology practices at DOE laboratories. The DOE invited comments to published questions concerning technology transfer practices at DOE laboratories. The comment period was to continue for 60 days from the date of the publication of the                         **Federal Register**                         notice (till January 26, 2009). This                         **Federal Register**                         notice extends the comment period till March 26, 2009, to allow additional time for the public to respond to the questions raised in the Notice of Inquiry.                     

# DATES:

The comment period has been extended to March 26, 2009. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Comments may be submitted electronically at:                         *GC-62@hq.doe.gov;*                         or by mail at: Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585. ATTN: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER QUESTIONS.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul A. Gottlieb, Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6F-067, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-3439. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2009. 

Devon Streit, 

Office of Science.

 [FR Doc. E9-1562 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) of Marathon Acquisition Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael S. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.



/s/ Michael S. GrossName:

Michael S. GrossDate:

November 14, 2007
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Boyd E. Hoback, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Good Times Restaurants Inc.;

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.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

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

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	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.

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and 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 are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

/s/ Boyd E. Hoback

Boyd E. Hoback
*President and Chief Executive Officer*
August 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 8, 2009, Chattem 
Chemicals Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, 
Tennessee 37409, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411).................  I
Dihydromorphine (9145)......................  I
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105)......................  II
Lisdexamfetamine (1205).....................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
Pentobarbital (2270)........................  II
Codeine (9050)..............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120).......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II
Hydromorphone (9150)........................  II
Hydrocodone (9193)..........................  II
Meperidine (9230)...........................  II
Morphine (9300).............................  II
Oripavine (9330)............................  II
Thebaine (9333).............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652)..........................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668).......................  II
Alfentanil (9737)...........................  II
Remifentanil (9739).........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)...........................  II
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than August 31, 2009.

    Dated: June 22, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-15442 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20443

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kenneth Charles Fragoso, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:90-CR-328-2

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kenneth Charles Fragoso challenges denial of: his motion for 

compassionate release in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, the 

denial of his motion for reconsideration. Fragoso, however, was granted 

clemency by the President of the United States and has been released from 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20443 Document: 00515777071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 20-20443

2

prison. Accordingly, this appeal is moot. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 

277, 278–79 (5th Cir. 1987).

DISMISSED.

Case: 20-20443 Document: 00515777071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Floyd, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 894]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), imposed February 25, 2011, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; *People v Jones,*106 AD3d 1106 [2013]; *People v Sommerville,*104 AD3d 880 [2013]; *People v McHugh,*101 AD3d 754 [2012]; *People v Badru,*98 AD3d 1132 [2012]; *cf. People v Tyrell,*22 NY3d 359 [2013]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 564 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 564

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 19, 2019.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer 

Pursuant to 

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Marathon Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MichaelS. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30535-30539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-22]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-22 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 30536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.210


[[Page 30537]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.211


[[Page 30538]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.212


[[Page 30539]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.213


    Dated: May 29, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-15112 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C