alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7519** 

MCKENZIE COREY SHELTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:12

- cv - 03193

- RBH )

Submitted : March 21, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. McKenzie Corey Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: McKenzie Corey Shelton seeks to appea l the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this st andard 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shelton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s motions for copies and a transcript at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the ap peal. We dispense with oral argument because the3 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.4

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Imagis Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ross Wilmot,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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/ Ross Wilmot
Ross Wilmot
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Cristian Manuel SILVA-PORTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74676.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 02, 2008.

Lorenzo Tijerina, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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 **

Cristian Manuel Silva-Porto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Silva-Porto’s contention he was not informed of *672his apparent eligibility to file for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(B)(ii)(I) because he did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not raised during administrative proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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

----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) 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 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated:  February 27,      2009 | /s/ Thomas B. Specketer            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          | Thomas      B. Specketer           |   |
|                                          | Vice      President and Controller |   |
|                                          | (principal      financial officer) |   |

----

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          365,342
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   156,132
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,550,058
<PP&E>                          151,272
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,105,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           310,866
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        9,821
<OTHER-SE>                      1,623,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,105,919
<SALES>                         763,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                763,006
<CGS>                           597,644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   597,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                550,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (380,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (380,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (361,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.04)



</TABLE>
#### Mofizur RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70867.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed Feb. 24, 2011.

*680Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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 **

Mofizur Rahman, native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“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. *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Rahman does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on both the inconsistencies between Rahman’s asylum application and his testimony regarding the nature of the August 1991 incident, and on Rahman’s lack of detail regarding his injuries. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). We do not consider Rah-man’s contentions that the IJ did not have him swear to his asylum application and that the IJ failed to consider his corroborating evidence, because he failed to exhaust them to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Rahman’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rahman has not established that any torture he may suffer would be by or with the acquiescence of the Bangladesh government. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*681ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 13.2



                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 20-F filed
by Central Minera Corp. (the "Issuer") for the year ended June 30, 2003, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly
present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



                                           CENTRAL MINERA CORP.

                                           "Michael Cytrynbaum"

November 25, 2003                          Michael Cytrynbaum
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6226

BLAKE SANDLAIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN C. MARUKA, FCI McDowell , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Bluefield

. David A. Faber , Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00358 )

Submitted : August 18, 2022 Decided: August 23, 2022

Before WYNN , THACKER , and HEYTENS , Circuit Judge s
.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Blake Sandlain, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6226 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Blake Sandlain , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s or der accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Sandlain’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He also appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined that Sandlain may not challenge the validity of his convictions and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sandla in v. Maruka , No. 1:20

- cv - 00358 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 25, 2022 & Feb. 14, 2022) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6226 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
**GROVERSELLERS A,TORNEY**  **GENERAL** 

### 5.21

Xanorrbke Y. C. Ledbetter CouRty *ttomey coehroa couclty 3f&wtoR,Te%as

Xe have reae regent date requeethe 8bMe subJact

eTe1 0pQortuRitlea to to oampletlan. ROW, coEamleaionera' court xaej hare Wmatathorlty to:' iblto any one*, undar~ttis

ay op5nlo~ thet umlor the law, aa set eforomntioned 8tatuta, 4478, the Cuird. Court 6008 aot hare the authority to loeoe~fd CountyLW8gital. hnd in my O~&&ZI the oourt doee not hbve the mathorityto loasro maid hospital under Artlo& 4494a. 4494b, 44940, 4494d. 449M. 4494tr 44946, 4494h aad 1494l. in tier or the hot that thepoQulratioR of coahreri county, Texsa, aooordfag~to the 1940 omw.zs wa8 3,735.

### 522

Bon.. M. C. Ledbetter, pa&s 2

*Thora haa been aame oontroveray in cochran Chat-y over the lelaaing Of the County Hoepita& aad tho Oaamisr~onera* Court hsa asked me toget aa opinion from your oifiae on the matter$ theraiore, I would agpreaiate it if you wouid sand us your opinion a5 e.0or.ia8 poeeible,m Coah.rani%?untyhall a population of 

### 3,735inhabitanta aoaordlag t0 tha 1940 Fedora1 Uanau8.

Thlr department has repeatably held that the Oamiseloner~a Court is a aourt oi lImIted juriadlation MU has 

### on4 au&hpower6 66 arr aonierred upon it by ths Constitution an& statute6 of thlr state either by expreea term or by neoeetaarf iPlplioatlon. soa- ,tion 

### 18ot'Mials B oi the Texas Constitution; Artialo 

### 2351, V. A. 0. 8.; 

### Van Boeenberg t. Lotett, 

### 1738.PI. 508,silllor

v. Brown,2l6**9. WV.** **(2d)** 

### 479 uvalflo countg, 

### 1679.w. tGalveston IS, &9. A. Ry. 00, v. 2dI 108&f ll kzas Juriaprudimae 564. The Le&lelat~e hmaattempteil to g.kve oertaln oountiea tho powerto lease oounty hospitals. BewArtialca &9l+a, **&l&b,** 

### 444i;,op4h&-4~gi 44941,494i3,fu 494hr wmxi*a mma We donot pars **upon** the valiaity of theme ittetutea, for ihat question ir not before us. Bren if said 8tatutoe are vallb, coohraa County will not tell in any 

### or the 

### aatogor%ea aet.bp the 

### fomgoint$ artialerr,

einoeitbm apopulation

of3,735. In the abaenoe oi eueh oonstltutioneL or Aatutory authority, Ooohran Oouuty has no euthorlty to leano the aouaty hospital. YOU quaetfoa is thaxafom azmwared in the negative. Yours tory truly, ATl!ORNXY GWEBAL

W -YS!US
BY 

# (p. s”kL,j/jL

**3. c.**  **Davis, Jr.** 

A6ai8tUIt
----

Exhibit 12.1 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Richard J. Hall, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Metallica ResourcesInc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thecompany as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financialreporting; and 

5. The company's other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of thecompany's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company's internal control overfinancial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2006 

/s/ Richard J. Hall                Richard J. Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer 

----
#### Richard L. PURCELL, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellee.

No. 11-1263.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2011.

Filed: July 8, 2011.

*651Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Purcell appeals following the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court1 in his civil action claiming retaliation for filing safety complaints. After careful *de novo*review, *see Johnson v. Blaukat,*453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006), we agree with the District Court that under the statute at issue as it existed during the events underlying this complaint, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a) (2006), Purcell was not entitled to relief. We decline his invitation to retroactively apply a subsequent amendment to the statute, *see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,*511 U.S. 244, 266-68, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), and we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, *see Steinbuch v. Cutler,*518 F.3d 580, 590 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 223, 172 L.Ed.2d 242 (2008).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, Steve Khan, Chief Executive Officer and Robert Hemmerling,
Chief Financial Officer, of Investment Associates Inc., 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Investment Associates Inc. for
          the period ended December 31, 2005 (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 Investment Associates Inc.



Dated: February 10, 2006                    /s/ Steve Khan
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steve Khan,
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated: February 10, 2006                    /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Robert Hemmerling,
                                            Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2426

ROBERT EDWARD THORNTON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUSAN KING MARTIN, Social Security Administration; JANE L. WARREN, Social Security

Administration; D. F. BILLETT, Administrative

Law Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-01-2388-6-22BC)

Submitted: January 28, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging that the

Appellees improperly handled his social security case. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

We find that the action is most properly construed as one

under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As noted by the district court,

Thornton does not specify any claim against the Appellees other

than that they improperly handled his application for social

security benefits and improperly evaluated him. Even if we liberally construe his complaint to allege due process violations, we

find that Thornton fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted under Bivens. See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412,

428-29 (1988).

Accordingly, we 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
Exhibit 21.1

MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC.        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Mattson
International, Inc.
Mattson Technology LLC
Mattson Wet Products, Inc.
Mattson Thermal Products, Inc.
STEAG CVD Systems, Ltd.
Mattson Technology Center KK
Mattson International Korea Co.
Mattson Technology of Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Mattson International Inc. (Taiwan Branch)
Mattson Technology Holding GmbH
Mattson International GmbH
Mattson Thermal Products, GmbH
Mattson International France SARL
Mattson Technology UK Ltd.
Mattson Technology Srl
STEAG Electronic Systems SE Asia Pte. Ltd.
STEAG Electronic Systems UK Ltd.
Mattson Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Mattson Technology Cayman Holdings, Ltd.
Mattson Technology Canada Inc.
Mattson Technology Israel Ltd.

---



QuickLinks