alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Badger, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 140]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J., at hearing; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 10, 2006, as amended October 17, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior conviction was a violent felony, to a term of 31⁄2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress *232drugs recovered from his person. An experienced narcotics officer saw defendant engage in what reasonably appeared to be a drug transaction, and then drive away. Acting upon a description of defendant and his vehicle transmitted by radio, a field team stopped defendant’s vehicle and apprehended him. The radio communication from the observing officer was, itself, a sufficient basis for a lawful arrest *(see People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416 [1999]; *People v*Brown, 304 AD2d 321 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 536 [2003]). In addition, one of the apprehending officers detected the distinctive odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle *(see People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, 284 [1971], *cert denied*405 US 1041 [1972]), and this independently established probable cause to search the automobile and its occupants (s*ee People v Chestnut,*43 AD2d 260 [1974], *affd*36 NY2d 971 [1975]). The hearing court properly credited an officer’s testimony that he recognized the smell of marijuana.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Gonzalez, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.
#### Roy HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7456.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Roy Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roy Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, 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,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt 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 be*269fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
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 Inova Technology, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009, (the “Report”), as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bob Bates,
        Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
        of my
        knowledge, 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.
 
 
 
 By:
        /s/
        Bob Bates
 
 Bob
        Bates
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 March
        13, 2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 20

- 00427

- CV
IN RE Gustavo GARCIA
- SILLER , Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Acting on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 Opinion by: Beth Watkins , Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2020
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
R elators Gustavo Garcia

- Siller, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Acting on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as In dependent Administrator of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion requesting emergency relief seeking to stay a trial court’s order compelling the production of certain documents. In their petition, relators alle ged the trial court abused its discretion because the documents , which were produced to the trial court in camera, were privileged. T he record shows

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015

- CI

- 08589 , styled John Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio, by and through the Apostolic Administrator and Archbishop Gustavo Garcia

- Siller and Archbishop Emeritus Patrick Flores, their predecessors and successors, as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio, Father Jesus Armando Dominguez, the Estate of Father Virgilio Elizondo, Deceased; Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, his prede cessors and successors, as Bishop of the Diocese of San Bernardino, in its assumed or common name; the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino, a Corporate sole aka Diocese of San Bernardino , pending in the 131st Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texa s, the Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.04

- 20

- 00427

- CV

- 2

- the trial court signed the challenged order on August 4, 2020, and the order required the production of th e documents by August 31, 2020. However, relators did not file their mandamus petition and motion for temporary emergency relief until August 31, 2020

. They did not submit the documents they produced to the trial court in camera until the following day. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy largely governed by equitable principles

. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera , 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). Relators offer no explanation in either their petition or motion for emergency relief explaining why they failed to seek mandamus relief until their deadline to produce the disputed documents

. See id. ; Furr ’ s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax , 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1995, orig. proceeding) ( denyin g mandamus relief when relator wait ed until the day documents were ordered to be produced, one month after the order compelling production was signed, with no explanation for delay)

. Accordingly, we deny relator s ’ petition. Beth Watkins , Justice
#### In the Matter of Chad Y. Community Counseling & Mediation, Respondent; Tony Y., Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 228]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated June 10, 2013, as, after a hearing, determined that his consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d).

*815Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; *Matter of Sharissa G.,*51 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2008]; *Matter of Felix M.,*9 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; *Matter of Kianna C.,*292 AD2d 380, 381 [2002]).

Rivera, J.E, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
----

**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 Northport Investments,  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December  31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report’), I, Richard Wang, Chief 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/ Richard Wang  Richard Wang  Chief Financial Officer  February 10, 2004 

----
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00708-CV

Stephen Lee GRAY,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v.

Martha Ellen GRAY,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-18391

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 25, 2009

DISMISSED

Appellant/cross-appellee Stephen Lee Gray has notified the court that all issues related to his

appeal against appellee/cross-appellant Martha Ellen Gray have been settled. Appellant/crossappellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and his appeal is dismissed. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1. This

dismissal does not affect the status of appellee/cross-appellant Martha Ellen Gray’s appeal. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 13.2



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 20-F of Metallica Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the registrant.



Date: March 28, 2008



/s/ Bradley J. Blacketor



Bradley J. Blacketor

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammed A. SODAGAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2882.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 6, 2011.

Decided May 20, 2011.

Maureen E. Merin, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven R. Shanin, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Defendant-appellant Mohammed A. Sodagar pleaded guilty to five counts of filing fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287, two counts of fraud in connection with identification documents and authentication features in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3) and (a)(5), one count of misuse of a social security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A), and two counts of fraud in connection with counterfeit access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1) and (a)(3). He now challenges the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence of these crimes that was obtained during a search of his home.

It is well-settled that a guilty plea operates as a waiver of any non-jurisdictional issues. *United States v. Rogers,*387 F.3d 925, 932 (7th Cir.2004). Non-jurisdictional issues are only preserved when, with the approval of the court and the consent of the government, a defendant explicitly conditions his plea of guilty on the right to appeal adverse determinations on those issues under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).

There is no evidence that Sodagar preserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress; his pleas were general and unconditional. Accordingly, we find that he has waived any right to appellate review of the issue.

Since there are no other issues before us, we hereby order that the defendant’s conviction and sentence be AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C.
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Adam
Radly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, 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.

| | By:
      /s/ Adam Radly
| | ------------------------
| | Adam Radly              
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| | October 26, 2011        

---
File Name: 14a0126n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION No. 13-3235 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BEATRIZ HERRERA; ) VICTORIA ISABEL PEREZ, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A ) DECISION OF THE BOARD OF v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ) Attorney General, ) O P I N I O N ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: BOGGS, NORRIS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Petitioner Beatriz Herrera seeks asylum or, in the alternative, withholding of removal on behalf of herself and her daughter, Victoria Isabel Perez. Petitioner was born in Colombia and is also a citizen of Spain where she resided before coming to the United States with her daughter. The crux of her claim is that she suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband while the family lived in Spain and that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. Both the immigrati on judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) denied relief. As with virtually all applicants for asylum , one may sympathize with petitioner’s desire to continue her residence in the United States. Based upon the administrative record, it appears that petitioner has suffered domestic abuse. However, as the Board recognized, that sad factHerrera v. Holder No. 13-3235 does not end our inquiry. Even if we were to assume, as did the Board, that domestic violence “may in some cases be a basis for asylum,” (A.R. 4) petitioner has not established that the Spanish government could or would not protect her. Absent this vital element, her application for asylum or, in the alternative, withholding of removal, fails. In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge the exemplary advocacy petitioner receive d below and in her appeal to this court. Nevertheless, after our own independent review of the administrative record, we adopt the reasoning set forth in the Board’s decision dated January 29, 2013. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied

.

- 2 -
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 June 30, 2004, 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/ STEVEN E. WEST    
|Dated: August 11, 2004
#### In the Matter of Doris Lavianca Abreu, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority East River Houses, Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 115]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered September 7, 2006, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondents’ determination, dated June 1, 2005, dismissing petitioner’s grievance seeking to succeed to the tenancy of the deceased tenant as a remaining family member, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member because she did not enter the apartment lawfully, respondent never gave the tenant of record written permission for petitioner to join her household, and petitioner admitted that no such permission was ever obtained. This was further corroborated by the tenant’s annual income affidavits for the years petitioner allegedly lived in the apartment, in which the tenant listed no occupants other than herself, and by the testimony of the Housing Assistant that prior to the tenant’s death, she had never requested that anyone join her household *(see Jamison v New York City Hous. Auth.-Lincoln Houses,*25 AD3d 501 [2006]). The record affords no legal basis for relieving petitioner of the written notice requirement, since she failed to establish that respondent knew or implicitly approved of her permanent residency in the apartment *(see Matter of McFarlane v New York City Hous. Auth.,*9 AD3d 289 [2004]). We further note that petitioner was not in compliance with the one-year-occupancy rule *(see Matter of Torres v New York City Hous. Auth.,*40 AD3d 328, 329 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ADVANCED BUSINESS SCIENCES, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001088120
<NAME> ADVANCED BUSINESS SCIENCES
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    754,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               785,999
<PP&E>                                         843,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                 516,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,391,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,302,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         20
<COMMON>                                        11,197
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,117,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,391,732
<SALES>                                         61,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,914
<CGS>                                           19,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               525,561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (573,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (573,408)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>