alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Cecil Bancorp, Inc.

Elkton, Maryland

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Numbers 333-35120 on Form S-3 and 333-153227 and 33-81374 on Forms S-8 of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Cecil Bancorp) of our report dated March 19, 2009, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Cecil Bancorp as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report is included in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Cecil Bancorp.

 

|   | /s/ Stegman & Company |
|--------|---------------------------|

 

 

Baltimore, Maryland

March 30, 2009
1 Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ROBERT STERLING DORSEY, a/k/a Pete Dorsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-254) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, 1and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Sterling Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 The district court recharacterized Dorsey’s paper entitled “motion to amend sentence” as a “motion to correct sentence,” presumably brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Sterling Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 2 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dorsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<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 Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
R. Marchiando, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer) 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; and

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


/s/ Keith R. Marchiando
-------------------------------------
Keith R. Marchiando
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 29, 2005
**Exhibit 99.2**

Name:  Steven E. West Title:    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Steven E. West, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|                                                      |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ STEVEN E. WEST                                   |   |   |        |
| **Dated: November 13, 2002**     |
Exhibit 31.1

I, Kenneth T. Myers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2009



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________
No. 98-50048 Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN HICKS, also known as James Robinson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W-95-CA-303 & W-93-CR-85-1)

April 8, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Melvin Hicks (“Hicks”) has appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the district court erred in denying him his ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. Hicks has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged ineffective

assistance. S ee Lockhart v. Fretwell

, 506 U.S. 364, 369 (1993); Strickland v. Washington

, 466 U.S.

668, 694 (1984). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
<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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spanish Broadcasting
System, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice
President and Secretary 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; 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/ JOSEPH A. GARCIA
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joseph A. Garcia
                                            Chief Financial Officer, Executive
                                            Vice President and Secretary
                                            March 15, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Dennis BERNIER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7093.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

*293Richard Dennis Bernier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Dennis Bernier, Jr., pled guilty to one count of distributing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006). He was sentenced in May 2009 to forty-six months’ imprisonment. Bernier did not file a direct appeal. In April 2010, Bernier filed a motion, styled as a Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion, in which he challenged the $4000 fine the court imposed as part of his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Bernier appeals.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Bernier may challenge his criminal judgment. *See United States v. O’Keefe,*169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (stating that a criminal defendant cannot challenge orders entered in his criminal case using Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)); *United States v. Mosavi,*138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (holding that a defendant cannot challenge criminal forfeiture orders under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Nor could Bernier have properly sought reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. *See United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3530, 177 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2010) (holding that Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 authorizes reconsideration within fourteen days only to correct arithmetical, technical, or other clear error).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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.*
#### DAOQIONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72415.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Daoqiong Chen, Alhambra,' CA, pro se.

OIL, Channah Farber, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daoqiong Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s *715(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Chen does not contest the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Chen failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because Chen did not demonstrate that, even if he were to be questioned by the police, he would suffer harm that rises to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1020-22 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, Chen’s asylum claim fails.

Because Chen failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Chen failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

                                                                      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 The Majestic Star Casino,
LLC and The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Don H. Barden,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Jon S. Bennett,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 Registrant.

Dated: August 15, 2005

/s/ Don H. Barden
-----------------------
Don H. Barden
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.

/s/ Jon S. Bennett
-----------------------
Jon S. Bennett
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.
Exhibit 99.2

To the Board of Directors
Key Bank USA, N.A.

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report of
Management on Internal Control over Securitized Receivables, that Key Bank USA,
National Association maintained effective internal control over servicing
securitized receivables of AFG Receivables Corporation as of June 30, 2000.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of internal control over servicing of securitized
receivables, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of
internal control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or fraud
may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluations of
internal control over servicing securitized receivables to future periods are
subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, managements assertion, that Key Bank USA, National
Association, maintained effective internal control over servicing of
securitized receivables of AFG Receivables Corporation as of June 30, 2000, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

July 14, 2000
#### Randolph H. GUTHRIE III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee, *121Unknown Federal Bureau of Prisons Employees, Defendants.*

No. 10-3068-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 10, 2011.

Randolph H. Guthrie III, pro se, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alicia M. Simmons, Benjamin H. Tor-rence, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellee.

Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Randolph H. Guthrie III, *pro se,*appeals from the July 8, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J.), dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews *“de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Where a district court dismisses an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court reviews “factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions *de novo.” Makarova v. United States,*201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation mark omitted).

After reviewing Guthrie’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in
the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby 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 Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    NICHOLAS J. BENSON

Dated: May 14, 2003
#### Rosemary Newman, Appellant, v Raymond Gobes, Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 944]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 22, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell as she descended a ramp located on the defendant’s property. The plaintiff contends that the ramp was improperly designed and constructed and was in violation of the local building code.

The defendant demonstrated his entitlement to judgment in his favor as a matter of law *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). In response, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact. Under the circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.