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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6399

JOSE LUIS CRUZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00022-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Luis Cruz, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 

Cruz 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 contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Zevotek, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Adam J. Engel, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and Director 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.




Dated:  February
12, 2009




/s/ Adam J. EngelAdam
      J. Engel, President, Chief Executive Officer,Chief
      Financial Officer and Director
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
      to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with
      the Quarterly Report of Striker Energy Corp. (Registrant) on Form 10Q-SB filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission filed concurrently herewith (the
      Report), I, Shawn Perger, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
      and
      Principal Accounting Officer of Registrant, hereby 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 Section13(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 Registrant.








**Striker
      Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation**




Date: January
      21,
      2008 By:/s/
      Shawn Perger, President, CEO,  Treasurer,
      Principal Accounting Officer and Director
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            SUBSIDIARIES OF WESTCORP

WFS Receivables Corporation 2, a Nevada Corporation
Westran Services Corp., a California Corporation
Western Consumer Products, a California Corporation
Western Financial Bank, a Federal Savings Bank
WFS Financial Inc, a California Corporation
WFS Financial Auto Inc., a Nevada Corporation
WFS Financial Auto 2, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
WFS Investments, Inc., a California Corporation
WFS Funding, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
WFS Receivables Corporation, a Nevada Corporation
WFS Web Investments, a California Corporation
Western Auto Investments, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
WestFin Insurance Agency, a California Corporation
Westhrift Life Insurance Company, an Arizona Corporation
WestFin Securities Corporation, a California Corporation
Western Reconveyance Company, Inc., a California Corporation
Western Consumer Services, Inc., a California Corporation
The Hammond Company, The Mortgage Bankers, a California Corporation
Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 9
Exhibit 4.1


 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 



 
 PARKWAY PROPERTIES, INC. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND SEE
REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 70159Q 10 4 THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF PARKWAY PROPERTIES, INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof
in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned COMMON and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this
certificate to be signed by facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and has caused a facsimile of its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. Dated: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AND CHIEF
CHIEF INVESTMENT FINANCIAL OFFICER OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING INCORPORATED –
MINNEAPOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NUMBER 10-366(WHW)

Plaintiff, ORDER

V.

LUIS REYES,

Defendant.

This matter having come before the Court on the Motion of

Luis Reyes through counsel (Paulette Pitt, Esq.) for a Voluntary

Dismissal of the appeal filed on behalf of defendant, Luis Reyes,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(a), and the

United States Attorney’s Office (Eric Kanefsky, Esq., Assistant

United States Attorney) having consented to this Application; and

for good cause shown;

/‘

_____

IT IS, therefore, on this

day of rii’u&iij, 2012,

ORDERED that the Application of Defendant, Luis Reyes, for a

Voluntary Dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42(a) is hereby granted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appeal of Luis Reyes is

hereby dismissed.

H. WALLS,

U.S.D.J.

Case 2:10-cr-00366-WHW Document 179 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1307
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Diaz, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 756]

Judgement, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J), rendered June 1, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender treatment *(see People v Drayton,*39 NY2d 580 [1976]), in view of the seriousness of this extremely violent crime, as well as defendant’s prior juvenile record. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
@article{1210091,
  author = {Shannon Hoogerheide and Aung Naing and Joan Dreiling and Samuel M. Brewer and Nicholas Guise and Joseph N. Tan},
  title = {Experiments with highly-ionized atoms in unitary Penning traps},
  year = {2015},
  number = {3},
  month = {2015-08-14 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Atoms},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/atoms3030367},
  language = {en},
}
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 111 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 278
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for Summit Preferred Equity L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000812052
<NAME>                        Summit Preferred Equity L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
                                                                    
<S>                             <C>                                 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1996  
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1996    
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1996  
<CASH>                                                266,427            
<SECURITIES>                                          0                  
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0                  
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0                  
<INVENTORY>                                           0                  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      9,951              
<PP&E>                                                0                  
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0                  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        7,517,757          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 344,417            
<BONDS>                                               0                  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0                  
<PREFERRED>                                           0                  
<COMMON>                                              0                  
<OTHER-SE>                                            7,173,340          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          7,517,757          
<SALES>                                               0                  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      572,714            
<CGS>                                                 0                  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0                  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      128,414            
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0                  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0                  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       444,300            
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0                  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0                  
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0                  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0                  
<CHANGES>                                             0                  
<NET-INCOME>                                          444,300            
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .63                
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0                  
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 25 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 55
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 25 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 56
# covid_table50_c57_state
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 38954/38955

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

LAURA KRISTIN BAKER ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 302

Filed: January 3, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson , District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of ten years, with minimum periods of confinement of two and one

- hal f years , for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver

, aff irmed

.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney Gener al, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In separate cases, consolidated on appeal, Laura Kristin Baker was convicted of
possession of met hamphetamine with intent to deliver , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a). The district

court sentenced Baker to concurrent, unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of

confinement of two and one

- half years

. Baker appeals, contending that her sentences are

excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well es tablished and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707 , 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Baker ’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Exhibit 10.33



 Exhibit 10.33 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT
(this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement between Autoliv, Inc. and Jan Carlson (“Appointee”), dated as of 31st of March 2007 (the “Agreement”) was made and entered into on the 18th day of January 2013. 

 

	1.	The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Clause 7 of the Agreement regarding pension contribution in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 “The Appointee has the right, and if not otherwise agreed upon, the obligation to
retire on the last day of the month preceding his 60th
birthday. Pension- and complementary sickness insurance is described in the enclosed “Pensionsförmåner” originally dated 31 March, 2007 and as updated from time to time. In addition the Appointee is entitled to TGL (group
life insurance). The Company shall pay pension- and sick insurance fees corresponding to 48% of the base salary plus additional tax payments on premiums. Pension contribution can be increased via a cost neutral gross deduction from the salary. This
is a defined contribution solution hence no levels of benefits are guaranteed.” 
  

	2.	Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall be and remain unchanged and the Agreement as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Autoliv, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the day
and year first above written. 
  

					
	The Company:	 		 	The Appointee:
	Autoliv Inc.	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Mats Adamson
	 		 	 /s/ Jan Carlson

	Mats Adamson	 		 	Jan Carlson
	Group Vice President	 		 	
	Human Resources
Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee 

November 9, 2012 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Conference Center, Rooms 1 and 2

2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20212

9:00 Opening remarks and introductions; agency update 

9:15 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Time Series

 Presenter: Matthew Dey

 Discussants: Susan Houseman, Daniel Sullivan

 

11:00 Break 

11:15 Discussion of future priorities

11:45 Lunch

1:00 Enhancements to the Chained CPI

 Presenter: John Greenlees

 Discussants: Carol Corrado, Emi Nakamura

 

2:45 Break

 

3:00 Survey of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries (SOII) Undercount

 Presenter: William Wiatrowski

 Discussants: Steven Heeringa, Bruce Meyer

 

4:30 Approximate conclusion
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

U NITY FRIENDSHIP BAPTIST

CHURCH

,

Appellant,

v.

W ATLTON HOMES, LLC

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 214

- CV

Appeal from the

201s t District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 005374 )

O R D E R

On September 27, 2017, Appellee Walton Homes, L.L.C (Walton Homes) filed the

Appellee’s Sur

- Reply [Brief] and Objections to Documents and Evidence Not in the Clerk’s

Record. In that brief, Walton Homes argued inter alia that Appellant, the Unity Friendship

Baptist Church (Unity), improperly attached extra

- record documents in Exhibit A to the

Appellant ’s Reply Brief. Walton Homes asked us to strike Exhibit A “and any argument or

statements relying on such documents . . .

. ”

On October 17 , 2017, this Court granted Unity’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Objections & Response to Appellee’s Sur

- Reply Brief. On October 20, 20 17, Unity filed

Appellant ’ s Objections & Response to Appellee’s Sur

- Reply Brief. In that response, Unity

objected to Walton Homes’ “motion to file a sur

- reply brief,” contending that Walton Homes

“did not request leave of cou rt to do so pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) in

compliance with Texas Rule o f Appellate Procedure 10.5(b).” We interpret this as a request by

Unity to strike Walton Homes’ sur

- reply brief. Unity also asserted that because Walton Home s waited more than three months after Unity filed a reply brief to object to Exhibit A, Walton

Homes “waived any objections to exhibits.” Unity also asked for thirty days to supplement the

records with Unity’s Amended Motion for Continuance in the trial c ourt.2

We issue the following rulings on the parties’ objections and requests:

1) Unity ’ s objection to, and motion to strike, Walton Homes ’ sur

- reply brief is denied

. 2) Unity ’ s assertion that Walton Homes has waived any objection to the inclusion of Exhibit

A in Unity Reply Brief’s Appendix is overruled.

3) We will take Walton Homes ’ moti on to strike Exhibit A of Unity ’ s Reply Brief “ and any

argument or stateme nts relying upon such documents ” under advisement, and pass and

consider the motion along with final dis position of this opinion.

4) Unity ’ s request for thirty days to supplement the clerk ’ s records with its Amended

Motion for Continuance is granted. The Court will refrain from action on this case for

thirty days. AS THE DATE OF SUBMISSION HAS ALREADY PASSED IN THIS

CASE, NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE

CONSIDERED. After thirty days, the Court will resume its review of the case on the

merits regardless of whether or not the supplemental clerk’s record has been received.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 6 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2017.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                      1,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,072
<PP&E>                                           6,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,995
<BONDS>                                          5,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,928
<SALES>                                         11,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,711
<CGS>                                            8,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,080
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,919)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>