alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60305 Conference Calendar

MILTON LEON SIMPSON, ET AL Plaintiffs, MILTON LEON SIMPSON; CHARLES TORNS, JR.; LONNIE LONDON KENNEDY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus KIRK FORDICE; MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE; MISSISSIPPI JUDICIARY; MISSISSIPPI EXECUTIVE; MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 4:95-CV-398-B-A

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mississippi prisoners Milton Leon Simpson, #A84045; Walter Coleman, Jr., #37410; Charles Torns, Jr., #85825; and Lonnie London Kennedy, #63279; appealed the dismissal of their civilNo. 96-60305 - 2 - rights suit as frivolous. Coleman has since withdrawn from the complaint. Because Torns and Kennedy failed to comply with the district court’s order with respect to their in forma pauperis applications, their appeals are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Simpson contends that the Mississippi Habitual Offender Statutes, under which he is presently incarcerated, are unconstitutional. Claims that directly or indirectly challenge the constitutionality of the state sentencing decision are not cognizable under § 1983 unless the sentence “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486- 87 (1994); Serio v. Members of La. State Bd. of Pardons , 821 F.2d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Simpson is seeking a court order that would reduce the length of his sentence, his sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). This appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Simpson’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).No. 96-60305 - 3 - We caution Simpson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Simpson is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that the appeals do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert M. McMurrey, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report is in full compliance 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Robert M. McMurrey                    
|Robert M. McMurrey Chief Executive
Officer

November 24, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1







                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-19475, 333-06569, and 33-87826) and on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-77741 and 333-37529) of Asche Transportation Services, Inc. (formerly known
as Aasche Transportation Services, Inc. ) and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated April 15, 1999, except for Notes 4, 5 and 16, as to which the date
is August 10, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Asche Transportation Services, Inc., included in the Annual Report to
Shareholders (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 1998.



Chicago, Illinois
August 10, 1999
#### Bertha Maria ESPARZA DE RUBIO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74773.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 5, 2008.

Willard Bakeman, Esq., Law Office of Willard Bakeman, Oceanside, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bertha Maria Esparza de Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) granting the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) motion to reconsider. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, we conclude that it was “in the interest of justice” for the district court to transfer Esparza de Rubio’s habeas petition to this court, as it was filed one day after the REAL ID Act became effective. *Cf. Puri v. Gonzales,*464 F.3d 1038, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that transfer was not in the interest of justice where habeas petition was filed almost three months after the REAL ID Act, and petitioner also filed a contemporaneous petition for review); *see also Rodriguez-Roman v. INS,*98 F.3d 416, 424 (9th Cir.1996).

On the merits, the BIA abused its discretion in granting DHS’s motion to reconsider on the ground that Esparza de Rubio *715had been deported. *See Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) does not preclude BIA jurisdiction over motions to reopen filed by-aliens after their deportation). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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



Exhibit 21.1 List of Subsidiaries Subsidiaries
    
    State or Jurisdiction of IncorporationBusiness
Objects Software Ltd.
    
    IrelandBusiness Objects (France) S.A.S.
    
    FranceBusiness Objects (UK) Ltd
    
    United KingdomBusiness Objects Americas
    
    United StatesBusiness Objects Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
    
    Singapore (India branch office)Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaBusiness Objects BeLux S.A./N.V.
    
    Belgium (Luxembourg branch office)Business Objects Corp.
    
    New Brunswick and United StatesBusiness Objects Data Integration, Inc.
    
    United StatesBusiness Objects de Brasil Ltda
    
    BrazilBusiness Objects de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoBusiness Objects Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyBusiness Objects Greater China Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong (Beijing representative office)Business Objects Iberica S.L.
    
    SpainBusiness Objects Italia S.p.A.
    
    ItalyBusiness Objects Japan KK
    
    JapanBusiness
Objects Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaBusiness Objects Nederland B.V.
    
    NetherlandsBusiness Objects Nordic A.B.
    
    SwedenBusiness Objects Option LLC
    
    United StatesBusiness Objects Schweiz A.G.
    
    SwitzerlandCrystal Decisions (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong Kong (Shanghai representative office)Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd
    
    United Kingdom and United StatesCrystal Decisions Holdings Ltd
    
    IrelandCrystal
Decisions (Ireland) Ltd
    
    Ireland
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the
Registrant's consolidated financial statements for the twelve month's ended June
30, 1997,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000927790
<NAME>                        Union Acceptance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                             147,202 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      123,393 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (780) 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   269,815 
<PP&E>                                               4,724 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (2,574) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     392,166 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               25,550 
<BONDS>                                            280,501 
<COMMON>                                            58,270 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<OTHER-SE>                                          27,845 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       392,166 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    72,413 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       29,941 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4,188 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25,688 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12,596 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,195 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,401 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,401 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.56 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.56 
         


</TABLE>
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of Susquehanna Media Co. (the
Company) for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Kennedy, President and Chief Executive
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: (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/ David E. KennedyDavid E. KennedyPresident and CEOMay 13, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Susquehanna Media Co. and will be retained by Susquehanna Media Co. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NUMBER 13-13-00190-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ALBERT RODRIGUEZ MEDELLIN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 207th District Court 

of ComalCounty, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's fifth motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 22, 2013, and this 

Court has previously granted appellant four extensions for the filing of appellant’s brief in 

this cause. On February 4, 2014, a supplemental record was filed and this Court granted 
2

appellant until March 3, 2014 to file the brief. 

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's fifth motion for 

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is of 

the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's fifth motion for extension of time to 

file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor upon 

the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter. 

Appellant's fifth motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED, and the 

Honorable Larry Warner, counsel for appellant, is ORDERED to file the appellate brief 

with this Court on or before April 25, 2014. Further motions for extension of time will not 

be favorably entertained by the Court.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable 

Larry Warner by certified mail, return receipt requested.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

14th day of April, 2014.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LARRY L. STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 95-6919 RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. LARRY L. STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 95-7236 RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-704-2) Submitted: September 19, 1995 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ No. 95-6919 v acated and remanded and No. 95- 7236 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL Larry L. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Richard Curry, OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Larry Stewart seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition, and the district court's order denying him leave to proceedon appeal in forma pauperis. Our review of the record in appeal number 95-6919 reveals that Stewart's habeas petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, including an unexhausted claim of actual innocence based on an affidavit of the victim of the crime underlying Stewart's conviction. B ecause of Stewart's unexhaustedclaim of actual innocence, which was based on newly discovered evidence, the district court should have either dismissed Stewart's entire petition without prejudice, or permitted Stewart to amend his petition to drop this unexhausted claim. See Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 520, 522 (1982). Accordingly, in appeal number 95-6919 we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate or probable cause toappeal, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with these options. Regarding appeal number 95-7236, we note that Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) does not contemplate appeals from district court orders denyingleave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but rather directs a litigant whose motion is denied by the district court to file a successive and independent motion for such relief in the court of appeals. See United States v. Boutwell , 896 F.2d 884, 889 (5th Cir. 1990). Stewart
2did not file such a motion and were we to construe his appeal as sucha motion, it would be denied. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss appeal number 95-7236. 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. No. 95-6919 - VACATED AND REMANDED No. 95-7236 - DISMISSED 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zedekiah SYKES, a.k.a. Rickie Darnell Sykes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30340.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Allan Garten, Assistant U.S., Amy Potter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Rickie Darnell Sykes, Noel Grefenson, P.C., Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellant. Zedekiah Sykes, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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 **

Zedekiah Sykes appeals from the district court’s order denying what he calls his motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of pre-release prior to service of sentence. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sykes’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Sykes has filed two pro se briefs and the Government has filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. To the extent Sykes seeks to raise challenges to his conviction, we dismiss in light of the valid and enforceable appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas E. Sloan, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliance 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Douglas E. Sloan   
|Douglas E. Sloan       
|Chief Financial Officer
|January 16, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

YOLANDA VIOLA BURGESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-00-162; CA-03-1281-AM)

Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yolanda Viola Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen,

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 -

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s

order recharacterizing her 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2000) motion as a

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not

appealable 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 her 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 Burgess has not made the

requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Burgess’s motion for 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