alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William David WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-7283.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

William David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William David Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Jones v. Braxton,,*392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Wilson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v.*
      *530
      *Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Wilson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Audrey STURM, Fred C. Sturm, Plaintiffs, v. The GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. No. 4709.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

March 26, 1954.

*477Leo Parskey, Benjamin Rabinovitz, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiffs.

James B. Hallett, Warren Maxwell, Hartford, Conn., for defendant.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury action arising out of a fall in defendant’s store.

Under Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A., plaintiff addressed interrogatories to defendant, in one of which, 5(d) to which objection is made, plaintiff requests a copy of each statement, oral or written, given defendant or any employee of defendant or any representative in defendant’s behalf, in connection with the case.

The request should have been made under Rule 34 since it asks production of documents from a party. We may consider it as made under that Rule. This, however, raises the question of whether good cause is shown.

Insofar as the request calls for statements to counsel and for reconstruction of oral statements, a strong showing of cause is necessary, not made here. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.

 As to written statements made to defendant itself or its employees the same considerations may not apply and a slight showing of cause may suffice. Whether any cause for their production can be shown here, however, may better be determined after the number and the authors of such statements are revealed by answers to the other interrogatories.

The objection to Interrogatory 5(d) is sustained without prejudice to its renewal in whole or in part after receipt of the answers to the other interrogatories.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PATRICIA MICHALSKI, DOC# H36258, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1871

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; Ronald A. Herring, Senior Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Linsey 

Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Encysive Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Stephen L. Mueller, Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Secretary and Treasurer 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, 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.

/s/ STEPHEN L. MUELLER
-----------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Mueller
Vice President, Finance and Administration
Secretary & Treasurer

November 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. and will be retained by Encysive
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-25-2017]

On April 12, 2017, Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within FTZ 39—Site 1, in Dallas, Texas.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (82 FR 26435, June 7, 2017). On August 15, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: August 24, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18440 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE SUP REME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NICOLE MALLARD

, §

§ No. 556, 2017

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, §

§

v. § Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE §

FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § File No.: 17

- 03

- 07TN

THEIR FAMILIES, § Petition No.: 17

- 06903

§

Petitioner Below

, §

Appellees. §

§

IN THE INTEREST OF: §

JASON A. MALLARD §

Submitted: August 15 , 2018

Decided: September 2 8

, 2018

Corrected: October 9, 2018

O R D E R

This 2 8 th day of September , 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the

Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in i t s

November 27, 2017 order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED FEBRUARY
28, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           5,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                       861
<INVENTORY>                                     62,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,802
<PP&E>                                         176,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,943
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,603
<OTHER-SE>                                     218,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,274
<SALES>                                        130,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,539
<CGS>                                           57,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,321
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,826
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,826
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5 

       

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 5,366,837
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            460,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              179,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       6,059,746
<PP&E>                                 4,103,691
<DEPRECIATION>                         1,003,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         9,348,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    944,770
<BONDS>                                  632,664
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  37,513
<OTHER-SE>                             7,733,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           9,348,924
<SALES>                                3,552,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,003,935
<CGS>                                  2,516,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,516,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,847,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        81,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (441,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (236,838)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (204,172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (204,172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.06)

<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable are net of allowance of
     $144,000at December 31, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Manuel Morales LOPEZ; Graciela Cruz Cruz, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73547.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Robert F. Jacobs, Esq., for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John G. Amaya, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Manuel Morales Lopez and his wife Graciela Cruz Cruz seek review of an order of *768the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying them applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners’ failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency deprived them of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); *see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed). Petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship also does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas,*424 F.3d at 930.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1004-1006 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Geron Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)  |  | the accompanying quarterly report
      on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended September
      30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                          

Dated: October 31, 2008

|/s/ DAVID L. GREENWOOD                                     | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- | 
|David L. Greenwood                                        
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Geron Corporation and
will be retained by Geron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       April 29, 2008 | By:    |  /s/      George Paz                            |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | George      Paz                                      |   |
|                            |   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                            |   | Express      Scripts, Inc.                           |
SEMT 2013-6

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-6 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: April 1, 2024

 

 

/s/	Jeremy P. Strom	

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 4.13.1



                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                             STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT


The Stock Purchase Warrant, dated October 10, 1996, by Norris Communications,
Inc. in favor of Higham, McConnell & Dunning ("Holder"), is hereby amended as
follows:

1.   The first unnumbered paragraph of the Stock Purchase Warrant is hereby
     amended by deleting "$.65625" and inserting "$.15625" and deleting Section
     3.4 in its entirety.

Except as provided in this Amendment No. 1 to Stock Purchase Warrant, all terms
and provisions of the Stock Purchase Warrant are in full force and effect, and
have not been changed, amended or modified.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Holder have caused this Amendment No. 1 to
Stock Purchase Warrant to be executed by duly authorized officers effective as
of this 14th day of October, 1997.

                                                                       "Company"

                                                    NORRIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
                                                          a Delaware corporation

                                       By: /s/  Alfred H. Falk
                                          --------------------------------------
                                       Title: President
                                             -----------------------------------

                                                                        "Holder"

                                                     HIGHAM, McCONNELL & DUNNING

                                       By: /s/ Curt Barwick
                                          --------------------------------------