alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30150

Conference Calendar

 

ARTHUR THOMPSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, WARDEN,

LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-361-B

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur Thompson, Louisiana prisoner # 127301, appeals the

district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as

untimely. The district court granted Thompson a certificate of

appealability on the issue whether Campbell v. Louisiana, 523

U.S. 392, 401 (1998), announced a new rule of constitutional law

that has been made retroactively applicable to cases on
No. 02-30150

-2-

collateral review. Thompson argues on appeal that his petition,

in which he raised a Campbell claim, was timely filed.

We review the district court's findings of fact for clear

error and issues of law de novo. Evans v. Cockrell, 285 F.3d

370, 374 (5th Cir. 2002). 

In Campbell, the Supreme Court held, on direct review from a

criminal conviction, that a white defendant possessed standing to

object to discrimination against black people in the selection of

his grand jury. Campbell, 523 U.S. at 400. Although we recently

held that Campbell did not announce a new rule of constitutional

law, Thompson, a black male, did not have to wait for the

decision in Campbell to raise his claim concerning the racial

composition of the grand jury. See Rideau v. Whitley, 237 F.3d

472, 484 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 924 (2001); see

also Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 551 (1979)(citing to

numerous cases). Consequently, Thompson did not file his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus within the time limits

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Accordingly, the district

court’s order dismissing his petition as untimely is AFFIRMED. 

In light of the foregoing, Thompson’s request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### CLARK v. ATLANTIC STEVEDORING CO., Inc.

Civil Action No. 3038.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Feb. 15, 1943.

Abraham M. Fisch, of New York City, for plaintiff.

John P. Smith, of New York City, for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

Motion for a separate trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 42(b), 28 U.S.CA. following section 723c.

This is a Jones Act case, to recover damages for personal injuries. The answer pleads a general release, and the reply asserts misrepresentations which induced the plaintiff to sign it, and that he tendered back the consideration, which was returned to him, but that he has not accepted it, i.e., he retained the check and tenders it into court.

The defendant asks for the separate trial on this issue, since the release was obtained by the representative of an insurance company, which will develop on the trial to the defendant’s' prejudice.

The plaintiff is in the Army now, and his attorney says that he fears his client cannot obtain two furloughs for two trials; and otherwise opposes the motion.

It may be doubted if the average jury today is as ingenuous as the law seems to suppose, concerning the extent to which insurance companies participate in negligence litigation and bear its financial burdens.

In any case, the defendant has tendered the issue, and I cannot observe in the motion papers anything to justify the con*36elusion that prejudice to the defendant is likely to develop by holding one trial of all the issues in the case.

Motion denied, without prejudice to the renewal thereof in connection with the actual proceedings at the trial. The Judge who is to preside is not to feel himself constrained by this disposition at the motion term.

Settle order.
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 Quarterly Report of Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies,
      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 the undersigned’s 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 fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








Dated:  May 14,
      2007


By: /s/
      John
      T. Grippo


John
      T.
      Grippo, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
**Exhibit
      32**





**AMERICAN
      RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY**


**A
      UTAH CORPORATION**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of American Resources and Development Company
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Thomas Stamos, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to §§ 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed from within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Thomas Stamos, and will be retained by
      Thomas Stamos and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.





Dated:
                July 3, 2008
            
            /s/
                Thomas StamosBy:
                Thomas StamosIts:
                Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial
                Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 60 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 763
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 60 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 764
#### WALLING, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. BELIKOFF et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 31, 1943.

Arthur E. Reyman, Regional Atty., U. S. Department of Labor, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Max J. Lovell, of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin defendants from violating certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

The defendants are the owners and operators of a place of business located at 13 Elizabeth Street, New York, N. Y., where, the complaint alleges, they are “engaged in the repair, rehabilitation and alteration, and hence in the production, of men’s used clothing for sale and distribution”; and that substantially all of the goods produced by approximately 77 employees of the defendants “have been, and are being, shipped, delivered, transported, offered for transportation, and shipped, delivered or sold with knowledge that shipment, delivery or sale thereof in interstate commerce is intended, from defendants’ said place of business to other states”; and that defendants have failed to pay the minimum wage rate set up by the wage order for the Men’s and Boys’ Clothing Division of the Apparel Industry.

It is contended by the defendants that the wage order is not applicable to them in as much as they are engaged only in the purchase and sale of second hand men’s clothing, of which only a small part necessitated cleaning, pressing and repairing.

The Administrator seeks an order requiring the defendants to produce and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy or photograph certain records and to enter, inspect and- photograph portions of defendants’ premises and manufacturing processes.

*93The defendants oppose this application on the ground that the primary issue is whether they are subject to the requirements of the wage order and that question should be first determined.

It is apparent that plaintiff is seeking to obtain evidence to establish the burden which it must sustain on that issue under the pleadings. The motion will be granted.

The order to be entered on this motion should be settled on notice so that the defendants may have full opportunity to suggest provisions for their adequate protection.
**Exhibit      99.1**

**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002 **

| 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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                JAMES                D. BURCHETTAJames                D. BurchettaCo-Chairman,                President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | /s/                KATHERINE                A. DERINGKatherine                A. DeringChief                Financial Officer, Treasurer and                Secretary |

----
[819 NYS2d 526]

#### In the Matter of William P. DiSalvatore (Admitted as William Paul DiSalvatore), an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

August 10, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Sherry K. Cohen*of counsel), for petitioner.

*196
      *Hinshaw & Culberterson LLP (Hal R. Lieberman*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent William P. DiSalvatore was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on March 25, 1992. At all times relevant herein, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within this Department as a member of the firm of Hale and Dorr LLP

In March 2006, in a response to a disclosure of various acts of professional misconduct from the firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, with which the firm of Hale and Dorr had merged, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee opened a sua sponte investigation against respondent. It was alleged that respondent was guilty of making affirmative misrepresentations to the firm in connection with his request for and receipt of reimbursement for various expenses, submitting false and fictitious letters and billings in connection with certain so-called pro bono clients, forging clients’ names on firm correspondence and making other misrepresentations to clients and lawyers. Shortly thereafter, respondent advised the Committee that he wished to resign in accordance with 22 NYCRR 603.11 and thereafter submitted his affidavit of resignation.

He states that his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered, that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation. Respondent details his alleged misconduct and acknowledges the pending disciplinary investigation. He states that if charges were predicated on the misconduct under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against them. He also states that he has resigned from the firm, has ceased practicing law and is seeking nonlegal employment.

The Disciplinary Committee moves for an order accepting respondent’s affidavit of resignation. In light of the foregoing and since the affidavit fully complies with Rules of this Court (22 NYCRR) § 603.11, the motion should be granted and respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

*197Buckley, EJ., Sullivan, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s resignation accepted, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to May 16, 2006.
#### Mark Zavelin, Respondent, v Larisa Greenberg, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 778]

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The parties were divorced by a judgment dated February 8, 2007. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, but subsequently withdrew that appeal on September 4, 2007. Thus, the appeal from the order must be dismissed. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-618 (FSH)

:

v. :

:

JOSEPH G. SCUGOZA, et al. : ORDER ON INFORMAL

: APPLICATION

 :

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court by way of letter dated July 14, 2011, regarding

defendant Country Bank's request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment;

and the Court having conducted a telephone conference on the record on July 18, 2011;

and the Court being advised that defendant Scugoza has not entered an appearance;

and the Court being further advised that the plaintiff and defendant Country Bank do not

believe any discovery will be needed to resolve the core claim between them in this case, namely

whether the federal tax lien or the bank's lien has priority;

and for the reasons discussed during the telephone conference;

IT IS ON THIS 18th day of July, 2011

ORDERED that, no later than July 26, 2011, defendant Country Bank shall provide the

plaintiff with the factual record upon which it will rely in support of its motion for summary

judgment;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than August 2, 2011, the plaintiff shall notify

Case 2:11-cv-00618-FSH-PS Document 8 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 36
the Court and defendant Country Bank if discovery is needed to respond to the motion for

summary judgment. If the plaintiff represents that no discovery is needed, then the motion for

summary judgment shall be filed no later than August 19, 2011. The response shall filed no later

than September 6, 2011 and the reply shall be filed no later than September 12, 2011. The

return date shall be September 19, 2011 before the Hon. Faith S. Hochberg. Her Honor's

Chambers will notify the parties if oral argument will be required. If the plaintiff indicates that

discovery is needed, then it shall request a telephone conference to discuss the discovery needed;

and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defendant Scugoza enters an appearance, then the

parties shall request a conference.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00618-FSH-PS Document 8 Filed 07/19/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 37
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5113 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5113

 To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under the Federal 
                     Family Education Loan Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2004

   Mr. Kildee (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. George Miller of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under the Federal 
                     Family Education Loan Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCES.

    Section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087-1(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
            ``(v) This subparagraph shall not apply to--
                    ``(I) any loan made or purchased after the date of 
                enactment of the Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention Act of 
                2004; or
                    ``(II) any loan made or purchased before such date 
                of enactment with funds described in the first or 
                second sentence of clause (i) if--
                            ``(aa) the obligation described in the 
                        first such sentence has, after such date of 
                        enactment, matured, or been retired or 
                        defeased; or
                            ``(bb) the maturity date, the date of 
                        defeasement, or the date of retirement of the 
                        obligation described in the first such sentence 
                        has, after such date of enactment, been 
                        extended.''.

SEC. 3. EXPENDITURE OF SAVINGS ON INCREASED PELL GRANTS.

    From any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there 
is appropriated for each of the fiscal years beginning after the date 
of enactment of this Act an additional amount for the purposes of 
increasing the maximum Pell grant in each Act providing annual 
appropriations for the Pell grant program under subpart 1 of part A of 
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) that is 
equal to the amount that is determined annually by the Congressional 
Budget Office to be the amount by which expenditures under section 438 
of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087-1) are reduced for such fiscal year by the 
enactment of section 2 of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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

I, L. B. (Brad) Clarke, President of Organetix, Inc. (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the quarter ended
December 31, 2004 (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 Company.

Date: April 15, 2005

/s/ L. B. (Brad) Clarke
-----------------------
L. B. (Brad) Clarke
President
911 A.2d 478

#### IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT J. MURPHY, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 6, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-176, concluding that VINCENT J. MURPHY, JR., of EAST RUTHERFORD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to reply to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), *RPC*8.4(b)(criminal act reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness), *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and *RPC*8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to submit proof of his fitness to practice law within thirty days;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that VINCENT J. MURPHY, JR. is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, respondent shall submit proof to the Office of Attorney Ethics of his fitness to practice law by as attested to by a mental health practitioner approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual *585expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Coastal Media Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jan
Aaron Sigurgeirson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of November, 2006.


/s/ Jan Aaron Sigurgeirson
----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.2.2****DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PARTY TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS**          Schedule identifying agreements, entered into between the Company and each of the followingpersons, substantially identical to the Form of Indemnification Agreement constitutingExhibit 10.1.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File No. 001-33217):1. Noam Gottesman 2. Ian G.H. Ashken 3. Nicolas Berggruen 4. Martin E. Franklin 5. James N. Hauslein 6. William P. Lauder 7. Paul Myners 8. Emmanuel Roman 9. Peter A. Weinberg 10. Simon White 11. Alejandro R. San Miguel 12. Jeffrey M. Rojek
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88-1 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 3328
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88-1 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 3329
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88-1 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 3330
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88-1 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 3331
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88-1 Filed 10/31/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 3332