alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 

**- 7625** 

JACORI ANDRE CARTER ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.

D. FARMER, Correctional Officer; JOHNNY HALL, Correctional Officer; CHRISTOPHER GILBERT, Sergeant
,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

NURSE MEADE, LPN; TONY ADAMS, Investigator Sgt.; T. S. RAY, Warden; C/O RAMEY, Correctional Officer; PRISON GUARD POWERS, Correctional Officer; NURSE A. BOWENS; L. YATES, LPN; ROLETTE, Assistant Warden; J. LAMBERT, Sergeant; R. MULLINS, Grievance Coordinator
,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad
, Chief District Judge. ( 7:12

- cv

- 00008

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Jacori Andre Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Kate Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opini ons are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Jacori Andre Carter appeals the district court ’ s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny Ca rter’s motion to appoint counsel
, and we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Carter v.

Farmer , No. 7:12

- cv

- 00008

- GEC

- RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2012) . We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately pre sented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We reject Carter’s challenge to the district court’s refusal to sanction D efendants for their alleged spoliation of evidence.
| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and result of operations of the    Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By            | /s/ Arthur L. Smith          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                                                 | Arthur      L. Smith         |
|                                                                 | President      and           |
|                                                                 | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                                                 | December      13, 2010       |

----
Exhibit 13.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Graña y Montero S.A.A. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mónica Miloslavich, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley-Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 16, 2018



/s/ Mónica Miloslavich
Name: Mónica Miloslavich Title: Chief Financial
Officer
1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1737

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western 

* District of Missouri.

Benjamin J. Larue, also known *

as hardhornyguy24, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2008

Filed: May 2, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Benjamin J. Larue guilty of using interstate commerce to attempt

to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity for which he could be criminally charged

(Count One), and traveling in interstate commerce to attempt to engage in illicit sexual

conduct (Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b) and 2423(b). The district

court1

 sentenced him to 60 months in prison, which was the statutory minimum in

effect for Count One when Larue committed the crimes in June 2004, and 5 years of
-2-

supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that there was no evidence

presented that Larue would have actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting

all reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Birdine,

515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008). We hold that the evidence was sufficient to find

Larue guilty on both counts. The government introduced at trial evidence of online

conversations between Larue and an individual who purported to be a 14-year-old girl,

in which Larue suggested that they engage in various sexual acts when her mother was

not home, and obtained directions from a town in Kansas to her apartment in

Missouri. The evidence further showed that he then drove to the apartment and

knocked on the door. See United States v. Patten, 397 F.3d 1100, 1102-03 (8th Cir.

2005) (for § 2422(b) conviction, jury could reasonably infer from defendant’s online

conversation and travel to meet minor that he intended to persuade minor to engage

in sexual activity); United States v. Blazek, 431 F.3d 1104, 1108 (8th Cir. 2005) (for

§ 2423(b) conviction, government had to show defendant traveled in interstate

commerce with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C.

§ 2423(f)).

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60280 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus QUINCY MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CR-43-LN

- - - - - - - - - - March 20, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Quincy Moody appeals his conviction for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Moody first argues that the district court erred by denying a motion to compel discovery of a recording device worn by Moody’s coconspirator in a failed attempt to record their conversations. Because introduction of the device would not have significantly altered the quantum of proof in Moody’s favor, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the discoveryNo. 96-60280 - 2 - motion. See United States v. Reeves , 892 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th Cir. 1990). Moody also argues that the district court erred by admitting into evidence hearsay conversations before the Government had proved the existence of the conspiracy. He argues that neither the challenged conversations, nor conversations which occurred after the arrest of his coconspirator, could be used in “connecting-up” the conspiracy. This argument is without merit because Moody’s own statements were admissible as evidence connecting-up the conspiracy. See United States v. Flores , 63 F.3d 1342, 1358 (5th Cir. 1995)(defendant’s statements admissible as admissions of party-opponent), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 87 (1996). Regarding his newly-raised assertion that the district court erred by admitting into evidence his “extrajudicial admission,” there is no requirement that the introduction of an admission against interest be accompanied by corroborating evidence. Thus, there was no error, plain or otherwise, in the admission of the incident report. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160- 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). Insofar as Moody challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, we conclude that there was evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moody voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
See United States v. Bell , 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc), aff'd , 462 U.S. 356 (1983).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA  for  the period ending January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,

1)   the Report complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
     the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2)   the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the  Company.

By /s/ Antonio Estrada
Antonio Estrada
Corporate Controller
December 31, 2003


<PAGE>
#### Lorena GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71614.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Nathan M. Zaslow, Esq., Law Office of Nathan M. Zaslow, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lorena Gonzalez-Lopez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigra*976tion Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez-Lopez’s motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the evidence she submitted regarding her daughters and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00139-CR

IN RE MILTON LEE GARDNER

Original Proceeding

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13074-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based on Milton Lee Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, he has filed three 

applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The first application (WR-43,847-09) was denied 

by the Court of Criminal Appeals on July 20, 2020. His second application, (WR-43,847-

10) filed May 5, 2022, has been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. His attempt 

to file a third application for a writ of habeas corpus was sent to District Judge Alfonso

Charles in the 124th District Court of Gregg County via “a letter to Gregg County District 

Clerk, Trey Hattaway.” Gardner seeks mandamus relief from this Court. “Specifically, 

movant request that this court exercise it’s Mandamus Jurisdiction and Order the 124th 

District Judge Alfonso Charles, as District Judge to issue the Writ Of Habeas 
In re Gardner Page 2

Corpus....Specifically, said district clerk is ‘ignoring’ movants Habeas, and Judge Charles 

is failing to address it. In turn, these actions result in district court clerk, and district 

judges refusing to do their jobs, this court should grant mandamus relief.” [sic].

Upon the filing of the first application, the trial court judges then sitting in 

Freestone County both recused themselves; and Judge Charles, acting as the regional 

presiding judge, appointed himself to rule on the first application. He was not appointed 

to rule on the second application, nor has he been appointed to rule on the third 

application.

This Court has no jurisdiction over a trial court judge outside our district—the

124th District Court is not within our district; nor does this Court have jurisdiction to 

issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk except in circumstances not relevant 

here. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.201(k), 22.221(a), (b); see also In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 

874, 879 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed May 12, 2023, is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 24, 2023

Do not publish 

[OT06]
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32.1


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Encysive Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Bruce D. Given, M.D., President and 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, 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/ BRUCE D. GIVEN, M.D.
------------------------------------------------
Bruce D. Given, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer

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.
Exhibit 32
 
 
 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 OrthoLogic Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of John M. Holliman, III, Executive Chairman and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Les M. Taeger, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 Date: May 14, 2010
 
 
 /s/ John M. Holliman, III
 John M. Holliman, III
 Executive Chairman
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 /s/ Les M. Taeger
 Les M. Taeger
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained by OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
(the “Report”) of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30,
2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that,



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | By: | /s/ Arthur L. Smith                  
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| |     | Arthur L. Smith                      
| |     | President and Chief Executive
Officer
| |     | June 14, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BOBBY TAYLOR,

 Defendant Below,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

 Appellee.

§

§ No. 332, 2023

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1511017784A&B

§

§

§

Submitted:

Decided:

June 5, 2024

June 12, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of 

and for the reasons stated in its August 16, 2023 memorandum opinion and order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment

is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths

Justice
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,





1)
            the
                Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2)
            the
                information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





By
/s/
      Arthur L. Smith


Arthur
      L.
      Smith


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      13,
      2006
#### Harold F. CHORNEY, petitioner, v. Jason D. MONZACK, et al.

No. 10-46.

Oct. 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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






Date:      April 25, 2003                    /s/ Steven C. Futrell *
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Steven C. Futrell, President & CEO


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

                                       15