alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1455

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri

John R. Caldwell, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 6, 1998

 Filed: October 23, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John R. Caldwell appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Western District of Missouri after this court affirmed his convictions for

distributing methamphetamine, possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine,

and being a felon in possession of firearms; reversed his conviction for using and

carrying a firearm during and in relation to the drug possession; and vacated his
-2-

sentence. See United States v. Caldwell, 97 F.3d 1063, 1070 (8th Cir. 1996). The

district court resentenced appellant to 140 months imprisonment and eight years

supervised release, and ordered him to pay a $150 special assessment. For reversal

appellant argues the district court erred in applying to the drug-possession offense a

two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under U. S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 

We review a district court&s factual findings for clear error, and the court&s

application and construction of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Wells,

127 F.3d 739, 745 (8th Cir. 1997). Among other things, the record indicates that, at

the time of his arrest, Caldwell was driving a car in which there were four handguns,

a rifle, and ammunition. One of the handguns, a loaded .357 Magnum Llama revolver,

was inside a carrying case together with an unloaded 9-mm. Smith and Wesson semiautomatic pistol, a jar containing 46.74 grams of methamphetamine, a scale, a mortar

and pestle, and a substance suitable for cutting or diluting methamphetamine. Caldwell

was carrying an additional 16.26 grams of methamphetamine and various sized plastic

bags of a type commonly used for packaging in the drug trade. Having already

affirmed his conviction for unlawful possession of these firearms, we conclude the

district court did not clearly err in finding that Caldwell possessed a firearm and did so

in connection with the drug offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1,

comment. (n.3) (1997) (adjustment should be applied if weapon is present, unless it is

clearly improbable that weapon was connected with offense); United States v. Payne,

81 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Cantero, 995 F.2d 1407, 1410-12

(7th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Daniel DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.; Acosta; Doser; Wilkerson; Phillip Valdez; Idaho Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-35433.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2011.*

Filed March 11, 2011.

James Michael McMillan, Law Offices of James McMillan, Esq., PLLC, Wallace, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kirtlan G. Naylor, General, James R. Stoll, Naylor & Hales, P.C., Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Dixon appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to *767dismiss Dixon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1988 suit because Dixon failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Dixon also appeals the district court’s dismissal of his subpoena requests as moot. We affirm.

“[W]e have held that the failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies that are not jurisdictional should be treated as a matter in abatement, which is subject to an unenumerated [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b) motion rather than a motion for summary judgment.” *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2003). “In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” *Id.*at 1119-20. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo. *Id.*at 1120.

Defendants have produced Dixon’s grievance file, which shows that Dixon failed to appeal the relevant grievances to the highest prison grievance authority. Dixon’s grievances are clearly labeled as such, and Defendants represent that the complete file has been produced. *See id.*(reversing district court’s factual determination that prisoner had failed to exhaust remedies because the evidence did not show that the appeal record was complete or authentic). On this record, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that Dixon failed to exhaust his remedies was clearly erroneous.

Dixon argues alternatively that prison officials threatened him with retaliation and thereby rendered further administrative remedies effectively unavailable. The record establishes that Dixon continued to file grievances, even regarding the prison staff, after the date of the alleged threats. The district court’s determination that the prison staffs conduct did not prevent Dixon from exhausting his remedies was not clearly erroneous.

Finally, the district court’s dismissal of Dixon’s subpoena requests as moot was proper.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the registrant certify, to the best of their knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.   Date: May 15, 2010  NextMart, Inc.  /s/Wang YihanWang YihanChief Executive Officer   /sCarla ZhouCarla ZhouChief Financial Officer       1
Exhibit 10.31


ASSIGNMENT OF INVENTION AND
PATENT APPLICATION


Whereas I, Christine Ichim,
a citizen of the Canada residing in Spring Valley, CA herein referred to as ASSIGNOR, have invented new and useful innovations
described in “TREATMENT OF MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6”, the specification of which was filed on
December 16, 2014 as U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No 14/572,574, herein referred to as the Invention


And Whereas, Regen BioPharma,
Inc., with its principal place of business at 4700 Spring St., Suite 304, La Mesa, CA 91942 herein referred to as ASSIGNEE, desires
to acquire the entire right, title, and interest in and to the said Invention,


Now therefore, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledges that they have
sold, assigned, transferred, and set over, and by these presents do hereby sell, assign, and transfer, and set over unto ASSIGNEE
and its successors and assigns, 100% of the following:


(A) ASSIGNOR’S right,
title and interest in and to the Invention entitled in“TREATMENT OF MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6”,
US Non- Provisional Patent Application No. 14/572,574 filed December 15, 2014,


(B) any patent or reissues that
claim priority to U.S. Non-Provisional Application No 14/572,574; and  


(C) any continuations, continuations-in-part,
substitutes, or divisionals that claim priority to US Non-Provisional Application No. 14/572,574.


ASSIGNOR authorizes and requests
the Commissioner for Patents to issue any resulting patent(s) as follows: 0% to ASSIGNOR and 100% to ASSIGNEE.


ASSIGNOR hereby further sells,
assigns, transfers and sets over unto ASSIGNEE, 100% of ASSIGNOR’S entire right, title, and interest in and to said invention
in the United States and every country foreign to the United States. ASSIGNOR agrees to execute all papers, give any required testimony,
and perform other lawful acts, at ASSIGNEE’S expense, as ASSIGNEE may require to enable ASSIGNEE to perfect ASSIGNEE’S
interest in any resulting patent of the United States and countries foreign thereto, and to acquire, hold, enforce, convey, and
uphold the validity of said patent and reissues and extensions thereof, and ASSIGNEE’S interest therein.


In testimony whereof ASSIGNOR
intending to be legally bound hereunto affix his signature.


ASSIGNOR


	/s/ Christine Ichim	December 17, 2014
	(Christine Ichim)	(Date)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
        OF 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quick-Med
        Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September
        30,
        2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
        (the "Report"), I, Nam H. Nguyen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        hereby
        certify, pursuant Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
        my
        knowledge:
 
 (a)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   (b)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company. 
 
 Dated:
        November 14, 2007        _/s/
        Nam H. Nguyen____
 Nam
        H.
        Nguyen
 Chief
        Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Kocourek, 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 to my knowledge:



Date: March 18, 2009

/s/ ROBERT J. KOCOUREK Robert J. Kocourek Chief Financial Officer


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.

---



QuickLinks
#### James C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian McKINNEY; City of Madisonville, Kentucky, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-5541.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 5, 2011.

BEFORE: McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff James C. Davis appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on his federal and state-law claims for malicious prosecution. This action arises out of an investigation of a rental property that was in a dangerous and unsanitary condition. Following the investigation, a Kentucky grand jury indicted Davis for the felony of wanton endangerment. It appears that Davis’s son actually owns the property, and Davis maintains that he had no role in the ownership or management of the property. Eventually, the prosecution dismissed the charges without prejudice, and *443Davis brought these claims in federal court.

To prevail on a claim of malicious prosecution, under both federal and state law, a plaintiff must establish the lack of probable cause. Under federal law, the issuance of an indictment by a grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause. *Barnes v. Wright,*449 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir.2006); *cf. Cook v. McPherson,*273 Fed.Appx. 421, 424 (6th Cir.2008) (noting that an exception to this rule exists where a plaintiff is able to show that defendant police officers knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury). Similarly, under Kentucky law, a grand-jury indictment creates a rebuttable presumption that probable cause existed. *See Davidson v. Castner-Knott Dry Goods Co. Inc.,*202 S.W.3d 597, 607 (Ky.Ct.App.2006) (citing *Conder v. Morrison,*275 Ky. 360, 121 S.W.2d 930, 931 (1938)).

In this case, the district court found that Davis had not proffered any evidence— such as evidence that false testimony was presented to the grand jury — that would tend to overcome the presumption created by the indictment. We have conducted *de novo*review of the record and we agree with the district court’s conclusion. This conclusion should come as little surprise because Davis’s counsel at the district court conducted little to no discovery. Indeed, Davis has not obtained the grand-jury transcript, and we have no way of knowing the reasons the grand jury indicted Davis. Further, it is undisputed that Davis responded to a call that police officers were at the property, and that Davis accompanied the officers as they investigated the condition of the property. Having considered all of the arguments proffered by Davis in his brief, and at oral argument, we find that any further analysis would be unnecessarily duplicative of the analysis found in the district court’s opinion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that Davis failed to establish a lack of probable cause.
Exhibit
      32.2





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-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I, Bob
      Bates, Chief Financial  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/ Bob BatesBob
                BatesChief
                Financial Officer*March
                21,
                2008*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2830 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2830

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to give priority to unemployed veterans in furnishing 
   hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to certain 
                 veterans assigned to priority level 8.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2009

Mr. Courtney (for himself and Ms. Shea-Porter) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to give priority to unemployed veterans in furnishing 
   hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to certain 
                 veterans assigned to priority level 8.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Access to Healthcare 
(PATH) for Veterans Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY FOR UNEMPLOYED VETERANS IN FURNISHING HOSPITAL CARE, 
              MEDICAL SERVICES, AND NURSING HOME CARE TO CERTAIN 
              VETERANS.

    (a) Priority.--Section 1710(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In the case'' and inserting ``(A) In the 
        case''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(B) In furnishing hospital care, medical services, and nursing 
home care pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary shall give priority 
to a veteran who the Secretary determines has become unemployed during 
the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the veteran 
receives such care or services.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (B) of section 1710(a)(3) of 
title 38, United States Code, shall apply with respect to hospital 
care, medical services, and nursing home care furnished on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Keaveney, 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) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:November 2, 2011





/s Tom LeaheyTom Leahey, Chief Financial Officer(principal accounting officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.54

July 8, 2004


Margaret Julier


Dear Maggie,

RE:      EMPLOYEE SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN

In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan ("the Preference Share
Plan"), you are hereby advised that the Grant Date is July 6, 2004 for benefits
you have accrued during the year ended 31 December 2003.

Accordingly you are granted 103 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the
option to purchase an equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$13.45
or CI$11.21 each, which has been calculated in accordance to the terms of the
Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise this option, then payment must
be received in full no later than the close of business on AUGUST 5, 2004.

As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan ("the Option Plan"), you will also
be granted, as of July 6, 2004, the option to purchase 515 Ordinary Shares in
the Company. These options are exercisable in accordance to the terms of the
Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity to obtain an equal amount of
options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to the terms
of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional
Preference Shares before AUGUST 5, 2004.

Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful
year for Consolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.

Yours sincerely,
CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD.


/s/ Frederick W. McTaggart

Frederick W. McTaggart
President and CEO
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvyn
Brunt, 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 results of operations of the Company.

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.





Dated: November 14, 2006


                                                     /s/ Melvyn Brunt
                                                     ----------------
                                                     Melvyn Brunt
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2085

PAMELA NEG TINONG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-094-252)) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Pamela Neg Tinong (“Tinong”), a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Tinong challenges the IJ's finding that she failed to present credible testimony and thus did not meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the IJ's negative credibility findings are supported by specific, cogent reasons. Figeroa v. INS , 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Tinong fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Finally, we lack jurisdiction over Tinong’s challenge to the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture because she failed to properly exhaust these claims in her appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005).- 3 - Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. Respondent’s motions to strike documents in the joint appendix and to file a supplemental appendix are denied.

PETITION DENIED