alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1
  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of Weikang Bio-Technology
Group Co., Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Yin Wang, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  /s/ Yin
Wang
 Yin
Wang
 Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
 
 May 12,
2009
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30463

Summary Calendar

TOMMIE ANDERSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN TAPIA,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:04-CV-2458 

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommie Anderson, federal prisoner # 24492-034, appeals the

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

Anderson contends that his claims were properly brought under 

§ 2241 because he challenged the manner in which his sentence was

being executed by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Specifically, he

argued that his detention was unconstitutional because neither the

indictment, the judgment and commitment order, the presentence
No. 05-30463

-2-

report, nor the BOP’s records specified the penalty statute under

which he was serving his sentence. 

Despite his assertions to the contrary, Anderson challenged

the legality of his conviction and sentence, not the execution of

his sentence by the BOP. Therefore, his § 2241 petition was

properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v.

Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Further, Anderson’s claims do not fall within the savings

clause of § 2255. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the

inability to meet the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act’s second or successive requirement, does not render § 2255

inadequate or ineffective. Id. at 878. Anderson has also not

shown that his claims rely on a retroactively applicable Supreme

Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of

a nonexistent offense and that his claims were foreclosed by

circuit law at the time when the claims should have been raised in

his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v.

United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00003

- CR

JOCELYN HERNANDEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF MONTAGUE COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2015

- 0127M

- CR

----------



### MEMORANDU M OPINION 1

----------

Appellant Jocely n Hernandez attempts to appeal from her conviction for

aggravated assault. 2 Hernandez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, and

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 The trial court’s original judgment incorrectly stated that Hernandez was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon . The trial court subsequently granted Hern andez’s “Motion To Modify, Correct, Or Reform Judgment” and ordered that the original judgment be reformed to strike out the language “with a deadly weapon.”2

in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced her to two years’

con finement. The trial court’s certification of her right to appeal s tates that this

case “is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the

defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On January 8, 20 16, we notified Hernandez that th is appeal could be

dismissed based on the trial court’s certification unless s he or any party desiring

to continue the appeal file d a response on or before January 19, 2016

, showing

grounds for continuing the appeal. 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3

. No

response has been filed.

In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PU BLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 3, 2016

3 That same day, we also notified Hernandez that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction over this appea l because her notice of appeal was not timely filed.

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           | MEPRO      SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                           |                             |   |
| Dated:       May 20, 2009 | By:                    | /s/      W. Craig Turner |   |
|                           |                             |  W.      Craig Turner |
|                           |                             |  Chief      Executive Officer |

----
#### PHILLIPS et al. v. HICKEY et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 18, 1950.

Randolph Phillips, pro se.

Whitman, Ransom, Coulson & Goetz, New York City, for defendants.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Application to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of depositions, dated January 7, 1950, is denied and examinations may proceed at a place in New York City to be mutually agreed upon, and in the absence of such agreement the Court will fix the place in the order to -be submitted in accordance with this decision. The depositions are to be taken as follows: They shall commence on January 31, 1950, and shall be had in the order listed in the notice of depositions, dated January 7, 1950, and shall continue until completed. The deposition of each defendant shall be completed before the deposition of the defendant following in said notice is commenced. *44No objection has been made to the taking of these depositions on the ground that they do not relate to the claim of the plaintiffs. Rule 26, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The only objection raised is that they are being taken to be used solely in a proceeding before the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claim is denied by plaintiff, Randolph Phillips. It is further urged that the taking of these depositions will conflict with the Securities and Exchange Commission hearings, now scheduled to commence on January 24th. The commencement of the taking of these depositions has accordingly been fixed to commence on January 31st, and if the testimony of any defendant to be examined in accordance with this order is scheduled to be taken on a date when such defendant is required to testify before the Securities and Exchange Commission, a reasonable adjournment shall be granted until after the witness has so testified.

Settle order on two days’ notice.
EXHIBIT D 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 383-5 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 15683
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 383-5 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 15684
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 383-5 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 15685
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 383-5 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 15686
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 383-5 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 15687
Exhibit 99.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Satyam ComputerServices Limited (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:
 (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for theyear ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Dated: June 29, 2004         /s/  Srinivas V.  Director and Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer  
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notto be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-8926-8]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of a meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, announces the cancellation of a meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). This meeting, a teleconference on July 13, 2009, was announced in a                         **Federal Register**                         Notice published on June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27316). The purpose of this meeting was for the FRRCC to discuss and approve various draft advice letters for submission to the EPA.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer,                         *kaiser.alicia@epa.gov,*                         202-564-7273, U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or Christopher Ashcraft, Junior Designated Federal Officer,                         *ashcraft.christopher@epa.gov,*                         202-564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.                    

Dated: June 25, 2009.

Alicia Kaiser,

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-15799 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

versus

BARRY LEWIS MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (6:94-cr-70077-jct)

Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 10, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Lewis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Barry Lewis Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to correct sentence and modify judgment

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant

must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Alvarez,

210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding

is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies, citing

United States v. Petty, 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir. 1996), and

United States v. Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 102-03 (9th Cir. 1995)). With

or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of

time to file a notice of appeal of up to thirty days upon a showing

of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4);

United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court’s order was entered on its docket on

July 14, 2006, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(6), and the ten-day appeal

period expired on July 28, 2006. See Fed. R. App. P. 26 (providing

that “intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” are

excluded when the time period is less than eleven days). On August

4, 2006, the district court received a letter from Matthews in

which he inquired as to the status of his § 3582 motion. Upon

receipt of this letter, the district court mailed Matthews another
*Although Matthews’ notice of appeal was stamped as filed by

the district court on August 17, 2006, we deem it filed as of

August 15, 2006, the date he gave it to prison officials for

mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

- 3 -

copy of its July 13 order. Matthews filed a notice of appeal on

August 15, 2006,*

 within the thirty-day excusable neglect period.

Because Matthews filed his notice of appeal within the

excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court

for the court to determine whether Matthews demonstrated excusable

neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal

period. The record as supplemented with the district court’s

findings on remand will then be returned to this court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED
Exhibit 23.2 

 

**Information Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP**

 

On July 1, 2002, the Board of Directors of Sonic Innovations, Inc. (the Company), upon recommendation of the Audit Committee (the Committee), made a determination not toengage Arthur Andersen LLP (Arthur Andersen) as the Company’s independent public accountants. See the Company’s current report on Form 8-K filed on July 1, 2002 for additional information. After reasonable efforts, the Company has beenunable to obtain Arthur Andersen’s written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company’s registration statements (Nos. 333-36562, 333-59988, 333-76250, 333-98303 and 333-99035) (collectively, the Registration Statements) ofArthur Andersen’s previously issued audit report with respect to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended (the Securities Act), permits the Company to file this annual report on Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements, without written consent from Arthur Andersen. However, with respect to transactions inthe Company’s securities pursuant to the Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this annual report on Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, no claim can be assertedagainst Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act because Arthur Andersen has not consented to the incorporation by reference of its previously issued audit report into the Registration Statements.
Case 2:11-cv-02615-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cv-02615-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cv-02615-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 29
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-15658

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 7, 2012.

Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Robert E. O’Neill, Yolande G. Viacava, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Robert P. Bar-clift, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Myers, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas H. Ostrander, Attorney at Law, Bradenton, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert Trevino, Salters, SC, pro se.

Before MARCUS, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas H. Ostrander, appointed counsel for Roberto Trevino in this direct criminal appeal, has filed both a motion to withdraw from further representation of Mr. Trevino and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent re*873view of the entire record reveals that Mr. Ostrander’s assessment of the relative merit of Mr. Trevino’s appeal is correct. Having also reviewed Mr. Trevino’s response to the *Anders*brief filed by Mr. Ostrander, we conclude that (1) the appeal waiver bars Mr. Trevino’s argument concerning the district court’s leadership-role sentence enhancement and (2) any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be left to a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because of the undeveloped nature of the record. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, Mr. Ostrander’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mr. Trevino’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUGUSTO MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70297

Agency No. A070-064-239

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Augusto Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

FEB 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martinez’s appeal of the

IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over 90 days after

the agency’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Martinez

failed to establish changed circumstances in Guatemala to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence submitted with

motion to reopen must be qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the

original hearing). 

Further, to the extent the BIA construed Martinez’s appeal as a new motion

to reopen the IJ’s decision based on evidence not presented to the IJ, the BIA did

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Martinez’s new documents

failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances in Guatemala. See

Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (holding that evidence presented with motion to

reopen was not material because it merely recounted generalized conditions that

failed to demonstrate petitioner’s situation was appreciably different from the

dangers faced by her fellow citizens).

2 12-70297
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion to

reopen where he failed to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of

Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance was

not “plain on the face of the administrative record.” See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212

F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-70297
UN

v. Mag. No. fl2S25 (DEA)

DAVID WAX and ORDER ?OR CONTINtThNCE

JUDY WAX

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishtnan, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey CR. Joseph Gribko, Assistant US.Attorney, appearing), and defendants David Wax and Judy ax

(Mitchell 3. Ansell, Esq. and Steven Secare, Esq., appearing),

for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the

above-captioned matter, and the defendants arid their counsel

being aware that an Information or Indictment ordinarily must be

filed within thirty (30) days of defendant’s initial appearance

on this charge, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(b); and, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section3161 (h) (1) (A), the United States and the defendants having

requested this seventh continuance so that the parties can

negotiate plea agreements and thereby avoid a possible trial; and

for good cause shown;

IT IS on this - day of Seember, 2012,

ORDERED that the time from the date this Order is

entered, to and including January 10, 2013, shall be excluded incalculating the time within which an Information or Indictment
time to discuss plea negotiations, which would render any grand

jury proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter

unnecessary;

2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161 Ch) (7) (A), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendants in a speedy trial.

HO DOUGLAS E. ARPERT

United States Magistrate Judge

Nelson ST. Thayer, Jr.

Attorne In Charge nton Office

Grbk

S)s Attorney

Mitdell ,t4- Ansell, Esq.

Counsel for Defendant David Wax

Steven Secare, Esq.Counsel for defendant Judy Wax
p

g

g

jury proceethngs and &ny subsequent trial of this matter

unnecessary;

2. Pursunt to Title 18, United States Code, Section

311 (h) (7) (A), the x de of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendants in a speEcy trial,

A

i

HON. DOUGL E. ARPRT

United Stte Maistrate Judge

NeLson ST. mayer, r.

Atty In Char3ton Office

K.

antt1ni.d Sts Attorney

Mitchell Ansell, Esq.

CôUneI. fo Dfendt David Wax

Steven Secare, isq.

Counsel for defenda; Judy Wax

-2-