alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10339

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LISHON MARCELLE HUDSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-828

USDC No. 4:09-CR-137-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lishon Marcelle Hudson, now federal prisoner # 39081-177, has 

appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his 

conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, for 

which he was sentenced in the middle of the guidelines range to a 135-month 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10339 Document: 00512652915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 13-10339

term of imprisonment and to a four-year period of supervised release. See

United States v. Hudson, 422 F. App’x 343 (5th Cir. 2011) (direct appeal). 

On this record, Hudson cannot carry his heavy burden of showing that 

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors

in failing to object to the simultaneous application of U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.2 and 

4B1.1(b), the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See

Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012); United States v. Wines, 691 F.3d 

599, 604 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Hudson’s conclusional argument, related to counsel’s failure to object to 

the attribution to Hudson of relevant conduct in the determination of the drug 

quantity at sentencing, fails to demonstrate any error by the district court. See 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1987); United States v. Rhine, 

583 F.3d 878, 885-89 (5th Cir. 2009).

Because our review is limited to issues for which a certificate of 

appealability has been granted, other uncertified issues raised by Hudson have 

not been considered. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10339 Document: 00512652915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32(a)


                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification

           I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-KSB of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") for
the annual period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Bancorp.

By: /s/ Mary B. Halsey                                         March 24, 2006
   ---------------------------------------------------        -----------------
   Mary B. Halsey                                                   Date
   President and Chief Executive Officer
   (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   May 5, 2011 |                      |
|---------------------|---------------------------|
|                | By:                       | /s/   Ulrich Gottschling |
|                | Ulrich   Gottschling      |
|                | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 275 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 275

 To repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments 
                made to vendors by government entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

    Mr. Meek of Florida (for himself and Mr. Herger) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments 
                made to vendors by government entities.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF 3 PERCENT WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN 
              PAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

    Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking subsection (t).
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60795

Summary Calendar

CYNTHIA RENTERIA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A71 515 500

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

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cynthia Renteria, a native and citizen of Mexico, has

petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision

denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

In rejecting Renteria’s applications, the IJ determined that

Renteria had failed to prove that she was due relief on any

authorized ground. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding

that Renteria had failed to meet her burden of proving

entitlement to asylum or withholding of removal. We review the
No. 04-60795

-2-

BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for

substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444

(5th Cir. 2001). 

While in an abusive relationship, Renteria sought assistance

for domestic violence at only one police department in the entire

country and was dissatisfied with the results. It cannot be said

that one police department’s failure to resolve Renteria’s

complaint to her satisfaction constitutes past persecution by the

Mexican government. 

Nor can Renteria prove a well-founded fear of future

persecution. “To establish a well-founded fear of future

persecution, an alien must demonstrate a subjective fear of

persecution, and that fear must be objectively reasonable.” Zhao

v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Even assuming that

Renteria had a subjective fear of persecution, she cannot show

that her fear was objectively reasonable. Renteria failed to

fully explore the possibility that she could find sufficient

protection from the domestic abuse in her native country. In

addition, Renteria has not demonstrated a sincere effort to

relocate in her native country. Accordingly, Renteria has not

established that her fear of future persecution is objectively

reasonable and her asylum claim fails. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at

307. 
No. 04-60795

-3-

Because Renteria has not met the requirements necessary to

obtain asylum, she also cannot meet the more onerous standards

required to obtain withholding of removal and her claim for

withholding of removal also fails. 

The BIA’s decision denying Renteria asylum and withholding

of removal are supported by substantial evidence. See Efe v.

Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,

Renteria’s petition for review is DENIED. Her request for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Exhibit 13.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Joaquín Galindo V., the Chief Executive Officer and Fernando Gardeweg R., the Chief Financial Officer of Empresa Nacional de
Electricidad S.A. (Endesa Chile), each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Endesa Chile.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 20, 2013.



/s/ Joaquín Galindo V.Name: Joaquín Galindo V.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Fernando Gardeweg R.Name: Fernando Gardeweg R.Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D A LE W . D U G G ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. E D M U N D G . B R O W N , J r ., C a lif o rn ia A tto rn e yG e n e r a l; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16432 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cv -0 2 6 7 4 -B JR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B a rba r aJ a c obs R oths t e i n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erD ale W . D u g g erap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16432 2 D ugge rc ont e nds tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c ourtde pr i ve d hi m of hi s S i xth a nd F o u rt een th A m en d m en tri g h tt o p resen ta d efen se w h en i tp recl u d ed t est i m o n y, pu rs uantt o C al i forni a E vi dence C od e § 35 2, re l at ed t o the re pu t at i on of the l aw e n f o r c e me n tr a n g e r s w h o a rr e s t e d h i m. C on traryt o D ug ger’ s c on t ent i on , the re cord ref l ec t s thatthe C al i forni a C ou rt of A pp ea l , w hi ch re nd er ed the l as tre as on ed st at e c ou rtdeci si on i n thi s c as e, addres se d D ug ger’ s f

eder al const i tut i on al cl ai m . A cc ordi ng l y, w e do n otre vi ew D u g g e r ’s c la im d e n o v o , a s w e w o u ld if th e s ta te c o u rt h a d c le a r lyin d ic a te d th a t it h a d n o t r e a c h e d th e m e r its o f h is c la im . Se e Murdoc h v . Ca stro , 609 F . 3d 983, 990 n .6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . D ugge ri s note nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f ba s e d on the tr i a l c ourt ’ s e xc l us i on of re pu t at i on t es t i m on y bec ause D ug ger c anno tm ai nt ai n thatthe di sc re t i on ary excl usi on of thi s t es t i m on y w arrant s f eder al habeas re l i ef

un der c l earl y e st abl i shed f e d e r a l la w . See Mo ses v . P ay ne , 55 5 F . 3d 74 2, 75 7-60 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s n o t e s tab lis h e d “ac o n tr o llin g le g a l s ta n d a r d ” to e v a lu a te d is c r e tio n a ryd e c is io n s in v o lv in g s u c h e v id e n c e . Se e id . at75 8-59 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

TEAM America Corporation has the following subsidiaries, all of which are wholly
owned:

Ohio corporations:

                           TEAM America 5, Inc.
                           TEAM America 10, Inc.
                           TEAM America 12, Inc.
                           TEAM America of  Orlando, Inc.
                           TEAM America of Ohio, Inc.
                           TEAM America Professional Employer, Inc.
                           TEAM America of California, Inc.
                           TEAM America of Texas, Inc.
                           TEAM America of Oregon, Inc.
                           TEAM America of Washington, Inc.
                           TEAM America Information Resources, Inc.
                           Columbus E.L., Inc.

Michigan corporations:

                           The Personnel Department, Incorporated
                           The Personnel Department of Metropolitan Detroit, 
                           Inc.
                           PTM Management Company, Incorporated

Indiana corporation:

                           The Personnel Department-Midwest, Inc.

Idaho corporation:

                           TEAM America West, Inc.

Mississippi corporation:

                           TEAM America Mid-South, Inc.

Tennessee corporation:

                           TEAM America of Tennessee, Inc.

Montana corporation:

                           TEAM America of Montana, Inc.
#### Jerry ARMSTRONG, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SISKIYOU COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-17801.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Jerry W. Armstrong, Redding, CA, pro se.

Philip Price, Price & Brown, Chico, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jerry Armstrong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was unlawfully arrested for violating the terms of his parole. We have jurisdic*742tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Stewart because Armstrong failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stewart unlawfully arrested Armstrong without legal grounds to do so and conspired to put him back into custody. *See Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll.*83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“mere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Tharsing because he is protected by qualified immunity. *See Burns v. Reed,*500 U.S. 478, 495, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the *Monell*claim because Armstrong failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Tharsing’s direction of Armstrong to the halfway house was pursuant to a municipal policy, custom, or practice, or because of a failure to train officers to avoid issuing such directives. *See Galen v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,*477 F.3d 652, 667-68 (9th Cir.2007) (setting forth required elements of a *Monell*claim).

We do not consider Armstrong’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Armstrong’s motion to amend is granted. His motion for default judgment is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47071-47072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 26-27, 2017 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: National Institute for Aviation 
Research, 4000 E. 17th St. N., Wichita, KS 67208. Registration is 
require for this plenary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5c7d8dac7c7dcc6dadbf5c7c1d6d49bdac7d2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a5847455858435945446a585e494b0445584d">[email protected]</span></a> 
or 202-330-0654, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at 
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Seventy First RTCA SC-135 
Environmental Testing Plenary. The agenda will include the following:

October 26-27, 2017--9:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

    1. Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
    2. Approval of Summary From the Sixty-Ninth Meeting--(RTCA Paper 
No. XX-17/SC135-XXX).
    3. Approval of Summary From the Seventieth Meeting--(RTCA Paper No. 
XX-17/SC135-XXX).
    4. Review Working Group Summaries.
    5. Review Ground Based Task Group Summary.
    6. Review Schedule.
    7. New/Unfinished Business.
    8. Establish Date for Next SC-135 Meeting.
    9. Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. Registration is required to attend this event. With the 
approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral 
statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or 
obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.


[[Page 47072]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17, 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-21718 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.0

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

with Respect to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A

for the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Vermillion, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify,
to the best of such officers knowledge, that:



|1. | The Companys Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Form 10-K/A) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Gail S. Page                                                   
|                     |  |  |  | Gail S. Page                                                       
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 27, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Eric J. Schoen                                                 
|                     |  |  |  | Eric J. Schoen                                                     
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Accounting Officer                                           

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.