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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6235

MICHAEL AARON LITTLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-12-3-P, CR-87-19-C)

Submitted: July 20, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Aaron Little appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Little v. United States, No. CA-99-12-3-P

(W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Imad Kamel Yassine, Chief Financial Officer, of Bioshaft
Water Technology, Inc. (the Company), 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:

| | (a) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      second quarter ended January 31, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                          



|By:    | /s/ Imad Kamel Yassine                                              
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Imad Kamel Yassine                                                  
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                                             
|       | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
|Date:  | March 17, 2009                                                      

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 289 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3497
Case 2:11-cr-00277-SRC Document 289 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3498
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Green Standard Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, I, Sean Webster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby 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 and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  May 18 2015

Green Standard Technologies, Inc.

By:    /s/ Sean Webster

Sean Webster
S04A2098.

#### JONES v. THE STATE.

(608 SE2d 229)

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

This Court affirmed appellant Daryl A. Jones’s life sentence for felony murder but remanded the case to the trial court to address appellant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. *Jones v. State,*276 Ga. 663 (581 SE2d 546) (2003). After a hearing the trial court ruled that appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. Appellant challenges that ruling on three grounds. Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm.

In order to establish that counsel was ineffective, appellant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the performance was prejudicial to the defense. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). In light of this Court’s holding in *Jones,*supra,276 Ga. at 664 (1) that the evidence adduced at trial satisfied the requirements *of Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), counsel’s “failure to move for a directed verdict presents an insufficient ground as a matter of law for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. [Cit.]” *Vasser v. State,*273 Ga. 747, 750 (3) (b) (545 SE2d 906) (2001). Next, the trial transcript supports the court’s finding that counsel objected to hearsay testimony by a police officer; the court agreed that it was hearsay; and the prosecutor then turned to a different line of questioning. Thus, appellant cannot show how he was prejudiced by counsel’s behavior regarding this witness. *See Allen v. State,*277 Ga. 502 (3) (a) (591 SE2d 784) (2004). Finally, counsel testified that because eyewitnesses saw appellant come up behind the victim and shoot him at virtually point blank range, counsel chose not to emphasize the medical examiner’s testimony by cross examining the witness about the entry and exit bullet wounds to the victim’s head. Counsel’s response was a reasonable tactical decision a competent attorney would have made under the circumstances. See *Henry v. State,*269 Ga. 851 (5) (b) (507 SE2d 419) (1998). Accordingly, appellant failed to *881carry his burden of proving both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. *Strickland,*supra.

Decided January 24, 2005.

*Jonathan P. Waters,*for appellant.

*Howard Z. Simms, District Attorney, Eugene Felton, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Frank M. Gaither, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Jean Slack Lockhart, in her capacities as

Trustee of the Lockhart Family Bypass

Trust and as Independent Executor of the

Estate of Warren L. Lockhart

,

Appellant

,

v.

Chisos Minerals, LLC et al.

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 153

- C V

Appeal from the

118 th D istrict Court

of Howard C ounty, Texas

(TC# 52663 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant's motion for leave to file a response to Appellee's

sur

- reply brief. T he motion for leave is granted, and Appellant’s response has this day been filed.

No further briefing from any party will be considered.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
Opinion issued November 8, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-12-00973-CR

____________

BRANDON MARQUICE WILSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1252255

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Brandon Marquice Wilson, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

burglary of a habitation and committing or attempting to commit a felony. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(3) (West 2011). The trial court found appellant 

guilty, and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea agreement with the 
2

State, sentenced appellant to 20 years’ confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice 

of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has 

not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did not 

appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant 

to appeal. In his notice of appeal, appellant indicates that he wishes to challenge the 

voluntariness of his plea. When, as here, a defendant waives his right of appeal as 

part of an agreement on sentencing and the agreement is followed by the trial court, 

his waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he may not appeal 

any matters unless the trial court first grants permission. Ex parte Delaney, 207 

S.W.3d 794, 798–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See 

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
3

Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See 

Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, 

while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is 

permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without 

further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending 

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
---

EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS

> I, Harry Miller, certify that:
>   I have reviewed this 10-QSB of DentalServ.Com;
>    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
>    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
>    information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
>    the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
>    business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
>    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
>    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
>    procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and
>    internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
>    13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
>    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 small business issuer,
>     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;
>     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
>     internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
>     supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
>     financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
>     purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
>     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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
>     Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
>     internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
>     business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
>     fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
>     affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
>     issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: November 7, 2006 | /s/ Harry Miller
  ___________________________________
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Harry Miller, Acting Chief Financial Officer          



---
Order entered June 16, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00124

- CV
CARL BENSON, Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL AS SOCIATION AS SUCCESS OR BY MERGER TO

LASALLE BANK NATIONA L ASSOCIATION AS TRU STEE FOR CER TIFICATE HOLDERS OF EMC MORTGAGE LOAN TR UST 2004

- B, MORTGAGE LOAN PASS T HROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004

- B,

ITS SUCCESSORS AND A SSIGNS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 00086

- D



### O RDER
Before the Court is appellee’s June 3, 2014 motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee contends the appeal should be dismissed because appellant has failed to file his brief. Appel lant
file d his brief on June 1 3 , 2014. Accordingly, we DENY appellee’s motio n. On June 11, 2014, appellant filed a “Writ of Mandamus & Replevin.” Although, the first page of the document list s the name of this Court, the remainder of the document shows that it
was intended for the United States District Court for the Northern Dis trict of Texas. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s “Writ of Mandamus & Replevin.”

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF THE
                    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.1350

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of Lotus
Bancorp, Inc., that, to his or her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Lotus
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such reports fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Lotus Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary. This written statement is being
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q.
A signed original of this statement has been provided to Lotus Bancorp, Inc. and
will be retained by Lotus Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 14, 2008


/s/ Satish B. Jasti
-------------------------------------
Satish B. Jasti
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Richard E. Bauer
-------------------------------------
Richard E. Bauer
Chief Financial Officer


                                       25
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc lude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WI L L I AM L OP E Z - R OME R O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72464 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 854- 646 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio nA p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W i l l i am L o p ez-R o m ero , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f E lS al v ad o r, p et i t i o n s p ro se f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r atio nA p p e a ls ’ d e c is io nd e n y in g h is m o tio nto r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . 

# FI LED FEB 22 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72464 2 T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio nind e n y in g L o p e z - R o m r e r o ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e it w a s u n tim e ly , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2). L op ez -R om er o fa i l ed t o d em on strat e c hang ed coun trycond i t i on s t o q ual i fyfor the re gu l at ory e x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim it, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ). F i nal l y, L op ez -R om er o d idn o t s h o w p r im af

a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rth e r e lie f

s o u g h t, s e e O c h a v e v . I NS , 254 F . 3 d8 5 9 , 8 6 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (asyl u m i s n o tav ai l ab l e t o v i ct i m s o f v i o l en ce u n l ess they are si ng l ed ou ton ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
cntacitella@conaw con1 CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA 

I.AW OfF CE:G 

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH 

A PCNNSYLVA N!A PROFESSIONAL CORP O RATIQ N 

1,P MAPLE AVENUE 

RED BANK, NEW .JERSEY 0770 • 

17321 747•9003 

FAJ< <7 321 747,9 0 04 

w _ _ cprfawcom 

November 6, 2017 

VIA REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL 

Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. 

Kirkland & Ellis 

655 Fifteenth Street 

Washington D.C. 20005 

RE: Williams 

Dear Gene: 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 

LEMOYNE:, PA 

EIALA CYNWYD, PA 

PlTTSBURGH, PA 

CHERRY HILL, NJ 

CHR1ST0PHCA M PLACITCLLA 

MANAGING N.J A'ff0RN£'1' 

I write in response to your letter of November 6, 2107. Your letter does not accurately 

reflect aU that we discussed during our November 1, 2017 meet and confer, including 

information on the Bevan files. 

Although the intent of the meet and confer of November 1, 2017, was to discuss a joint 

scheduling order, I raised a question of how to proceed with the production of the Bevan files in 

accordance with Judge Rivera- Soto's recent order in light of the information I had on the files 

under Mr. Bevan's control. You asked me to look into some questions about the files, which I 

agreed to do. 

Accordingly, I wrote to you on November 3 and again on November 4th offering to meet 

with you early this week to continue our discussions and provide answers to your questions with 

the objective of arriving at an agreed upon protocol for production of the Bevan files. You 

responded on November 5, 2017 indicating that the dates proposed were not good for you but 

that you were available to meet on November 15, 16 or 17. I responded first thing this 

(November 6) morning that although I was heavily involved with NJAJ Meadowlands continuing 

education seminars occurring on the dates you proposed, I would adjust my schedule to meet 

with you on the 16th. 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 372-2 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15490
Before involving the Court, I suggest that we meet as intended and see ifwe can agree on 

a protocol for the production of the Bevan information consistent with Justice Rivera-Soto's 

direction. 

Very truly yours, 

~~For the Firm ~ 

/aem 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 372-2 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15491
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Resolve Staffing, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form  10-KSB  for the period ending December 31, 2002, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of  the  Company,  certifies,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or 15(d) of
     the  Securities  and  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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



                         /s/ Wanda Dearth
                         ______________________________________
                         By:  Wanda Dearth
                         Chief Executive Officer
                         June 3, 2003

                         /s/ Cristino L. Perez
                         ______________________________________
                         By:  Cristino L. Perez
                         Chief Financial Officer
                         June 3, 2003



<PAGE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CR. No. 11-82
v.

SHAWN COPELAND
ORDER

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

On December 13, 2019 this Court held a Status Conference regarding the violations of
the conditions of supervision by Defendant Copeland, as outlined in the Report on Offender
Under Supervision (ECF No. 23). The Court addressed i) Defendant’s outdated charge for
littering, ii) Defendant’s likely to be dismissed charge for assault, and iii) Defendant’s failure to
make payments towards his court ordered financial obligations. As stated in the December 13,
2019 Status Conference,

_ ape

IT IS on this be day of December, 2019,

ORDERED that Defendant must make payments towards his financial obligations to the
Court in installments of $25.00 per week, starting on December 20, 2019. Payments must be
made to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey at 50 Walnut Street,
Newark, NJ 07102. Any changes to this payment schedule must be approved by the Court.

Zo
Dane, A

va “A
ANNE E. THOMPSON, URPS
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 2876
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2877
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 2878
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 2879
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 2880
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 137 Filed 03/26/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 2881