alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7549** 

WILLIE BRANCH , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN F. ANDREWS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:14

- h c - 02007

- BO )

Submitted : December 16 , 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Willie Branch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willie Branch, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks
to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, which the district court also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12). When the district court denies relief on procedural gr ounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484

- 85 (2000)
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Branch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Branch’s motions for transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2187

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jemere Lamarr Frazier, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 9, 2009

Filed: March 26, 2009

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On its own motion, the district court1

 ruled that it could not reduce Jemere

Frazier’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reflect the crack cocaine

amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found it lacked

authority to reduce Frazier’s sentence because it had sentenced Frazier pursuant to the

terms of a court-approved Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea

agreement. Frazier filed a timely notice of appeal. 
-2-

On appeal, Frazier argues that his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not

prohibit a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Our decision today in United

States v. Scurlark, No. 08–2404, is dispositive on this issue. Scurlark affirms that

courts are bound by the sentencing terms of court-approved Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea

agreements and that courts have no authority under § 3582(c)(2) to alter those terms

based on subsequent changes to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, the district

court properly concluded it had no authority to reduce Frazier’s sentence, and we

affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,685,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,506,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,379,088
<INVENTORY>                                 10,211,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,885,334
<PP&E>                                     105,646,636
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,492,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             183,339,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,999,997
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,382
<OTHER-SE>                                  88,399,729
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,403,111
<SALES>                                     30,404,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,404,061
<CGS>                                       24,886,713
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,886,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,313,159
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             982,388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (774,347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (294,252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (480,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (480,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN EUGENE BRADLEY, a/k/a Gotti, a/k/a Gene,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:08-cr-00691-PMD-1)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Eugene Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Eugene Bradley appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we grant Bradley’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Bradley, No. 2:08-cr-00691-PMD-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 

2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Bryan A. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert AYERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-17343.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Bryan A. Smith, San Quentin, CA, pro se.

Scott C. Mather, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Bryan A. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as moot his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’ (“the Board”) decision finding him not suitable for parole.

Because the Board subsequently found Smith suitable for parole, and because Smith has now been released on parole, we conclude this appeal is moot. *See Burnett v. Lampert,*432 F.3d 996 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 4.13







SECOND AMENDMENT TO COVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE








	
DATE OF NOTE:

	
June 14, 2011; first amended June 28, 2011













	
MAKER:

	
RICHFIELD OIL & GAS COMPANY













	
HOLDER:

	
MACKOV INVESTMENTS LIMITED and PETER LAZAREVSKI













	
FIRST AMENDED

	 






	
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:

	
$140,000 as of June 29, 2011













	
ACCRUED INTEREST:

	
$4,403 as of June 30, 2011












1.   Additional Loans.  In exchange for additional loans of $5,000 made on or about July 5, 2011, and $7,500 on or about July 8, 2011, the parties hereby agree that the Note shall be further modified and amended as follows:







SECOND AMENDED



	
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:

	
$152,500













	
INTEREST:

	
$44,000













	
TOTAL DUE:

	
$196,500 payable on or before the Due Date of August 15, 2011.












2.  Release of Collateral and Conversion Right.  Holder hereby agrees to release the collateral comprised of the funds held in suspense by the purchaser of production on the Boxberger lease equal to approximately $80,000 under paragraph 1 of the original Note.  In exchange, Maker hereby grants to Holder the right to convert all principal and accrued interest into the common stock of Richfield Oil & Gas Company upon written notice to Maker at any time from August 15 to August 31, 2011 at the conversion rate of US $0.15 per share.







Except as amended hereby the Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands, effective as of July 18, 2011.








	
HOLDER:

	  	
MAKER:


	
MACKOV INVESTMENTS LIMITED

	  	
RICHFIELD OIL & GAS COMPANY


	  	  	  
	
By:

	
  /s/ Glenn MacNeil

	  	  	
By:

	
  /s/ J. David Gowdy

	  
	  	
       Glenn MacNeil

	  	  	  	
      J. David Gowdy, President & CEO

	  
	  	  	  
	
  /s/ Peter Lazarevski

	  	  	  
	
PETER LAZAREVSKI
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19721]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office

[NARA-2017-065]


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting

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

SUMMARY: We are announcing an upcoming National Industrial Security 
Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) meeting, in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulation 41 CFR 
101-6.

DATES: The meeting will be on November 1, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 
12:00 p.m. EST.

ADDRESS: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, 
Washington, DC 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by 
mail at ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eaf7fafdeaecb6eceaf1f6fff9f4f1d8f6f9eaf9b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="275548454255530953554e4940464b4e674946554609404851">[email protected]</span></a>. Contact ISOO at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7039233f3f301e1102115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="531a001c1c133d3221327d343c25">[email protected]</span></a> and the NISPPAC 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46080f1516160705062827342768212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffb1b6acafafbebcbf919e8d9ed1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 
National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting will 
be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access 
procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight 
Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, October 27, 2017. ISOO will then 
provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.

Patrice Little Murray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-19721 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his knowledge:









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 operation of the Company.










Date: September 8, 2011
/s/ Joseph M. CumminsJoseph M. CumminsPresident, Chief Executive OfficerDate: September 8, 2011
/s/ Bernard CohenBernard CohenVice President, Chief Financial Officer




26
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        I, Michael R. Knapp, 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 the Quarterly Report of Caliper Technologies Corp. on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Caliper Technologies Corp.



                                       By:    /s/ MICHAEL R. KNAPP
                                            ------------------------------------
                                       Name:  Michael R. Knapp
                                       Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                       Date:  November 14, 2002


        I, James L. Knighton, 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 the Quarterly Report of Caliper Technologies Corp. on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Caliper Technologies Corp.



                                       By:    /s/ JAMES L. KNIGHTON
                                            ------------------------------------
                                       Name:  James L. Knighton
                                       Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                       Date:  November 14, 2002



                                       29
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6749
RICHARD WADE KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; LINDA PITTMAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; WINNIE DIXON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-679-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Kendrick v. Metzger , No. CA-95-679-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 16, 1996). 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
#### In the Matter of AC I Shore Road, LLC, Respondent, v Incorporated Village of Great Neck et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 7, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion to enlarge the record on appeal denied. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the use of our report dated March 21, 2003, except for Note 23, as
to which the date is April 23, 2003 included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of GTECH Holdings Corporation for the year ended February 22, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, included in this Form
10-K/A.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-83492-01) and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-56106, No. 333-42932, No. 333-64167, No.
333-57781, No. 33-88426, No. 333-27835, and No. 333-27831) of GTECH Holdings
Corporation of our report dated March 21, 2003, except for Note 23, as to which
the date is April 23, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of GTECH Holdings Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K/A) for the fiscal year ended February 22, 2003.


Boston, Massachusetts
June 18, 2003                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600212

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

TANNER J. GIBNEY

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Mark D. Sameit, USMC.

For Appellant: Captain David A. Peters, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 25 August 2016

_________________________

Before PALMER, GLASER-ALLEN, and WHITSON, Appellate 

Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Point.360 ( the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:

|(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/ Haig S. BagerdjianHaig S. Bagerdjian
Chief Executive Officer 
August 13, 2003

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

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Edward SPRINGFIELD, a.k.a. Michael E. Springfield, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-13545

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Donald B. Lowe, III, Savannah, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Stephen K. Marsh, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*231Before BIRCH, DUBINA, and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne E. Springfield appeals his 188-month sentence for one count of distribution of 5 grams or more of cocain base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His sole contention is that he should have received a downward departure from the advisory guideline range for his timely acceptance of responsibility.

The district court, contrary to the recommendation contained of the probation officer, gave Springfield a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a) & (b). The court did so even though it found Springfield to have been evasive. That reduction lowered the guidelines range from one of 262 to 327 months to one of 188 months to 235 months. After considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Springfield to the low end of the guidelines range, 188 months.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Springfield. His contention that the court should have granted the government’s motion for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 downward departure is not cognizable on appeal. *See United States v. Castellanos,*904 F.2d 1490, 1497 (11th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.