alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell CALKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10031.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 16, 2008.

Filed May 1, 2008.

Brian L. Sullivan, Esq., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marc Picker, Esq., Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Federal probationer Russell Lee Calkins appeals his sentence of restitution. Cal-kins pleaded guilty to storing hazardous waste without a permit in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), and was sentenced to five years of probation subject to the condition that he pay *608$182,631.82 in restitution to the owner of the building he contaminated.

Calkins entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to the entry of restitution to compensate for the victims’ losses. He also expressly agreed to restitution compensating for the costs of any clean up that was conducted. He has thus waived any argument that the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution. He has not, however, waived his contention that the district court lacked legal authority to impose restitution as a condition of probation, *see United States v. Phillips,*174 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1999), but that contention lacks merit.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”) gives the district court discretion to require the defendant to pay “restitution to the victim of the offense” as a “condition[ ] of the sentence of probation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3563; *see also United States v. Angelica,*859 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that the predecessor statute to the SRA authorized a district court to impose restitution as a condition of a defendant’s probation). The district court thus had legal authority to impose restitution as a condition of Calkins’ probation.

Calkins also contends that, under the Sixth Amendment, the facts supporting any restitution order must be found by a jury rather than a judge. We have already rejected this argument. The Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary to impose restitution; instead, a judge can find those facts by a preponderance of the evidence. *See United States v. Bussell,*414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005).

The district court’s restitution order is AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony A. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30812

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Nicole O’Brien Snyder, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Anthony A. Williams appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a *406convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(e). Williams contends that his two 1990 Texas convictions for delivery of less than 28 grams of amphetamine were not “serious drug offenses” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act because the Government failed to prove that these convictions were for a state offense that, at the time of Williams’s federal sentencing, was punishable by a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more at the time of his federal sentencing.' *See*§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). But it is undisputed that Williams’s convictions were for a state offense that, at the time Williams committed and was convicted of it, was punishable by a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. Williams concedes that his argument is thus foreclosed by *United States v. Hinojosa,*349 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2003). He challenges *Hinojosa*as wrongly decided and seeks to preserve that challenge for further review. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of en banc consideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. *See United States v. Lipscomb,*299 F.3d 303, 313 n. 34 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion *for*summary *affirmance is*GRANTED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
MICHAEL
      TROKEY & COMPANY, P.C.





CONSENT
      OF MICHAEL TROKEY & COMPANY, P.C.




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-136607 and 333-140515) on Form S-8 of Liberty Bancorp, Inc. of our report
      dated December 20, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements
      as
      of September 30, 2007 of Liberty Bancorp, Inc. which appears in the 2007 annual
      report which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/Michael
                Trokey & Company, P.C.Certified
                Public Accountants




December
      26, 2007


St.
      Louis, Missouri
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 Annual Report of Accelerize New Media, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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:
 
 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.
  Dated:
March 31, 2008
 
 
 /s/ Brian Ross
 Brian Ross
 President and Chief Executive
Officer
EX 10.42


    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    


    


    
      	
              $32,341.00
                Addison, Texas

            	
              December
                20, 2006

            


    

    


    


    FOR
      VALUE
      RECEIVED, Humphries Marketing Group, LLC (a Texas limited liability company)
      doing business at 16801 Addison Road, Suite 310, Addison, Texas (the
      "Undersigned") promises to pay to the order of Dealer Advance, Inc. ("Holder"),
      or at such place(s) as Holder may designate in writing, the principal sum of
      Thirty-two thousand three hundred forty-one no/100 dollars ($32,341), together
      with interest thereon at the prime rate as published in the Wall Street Journal
      and due and payable upon on or before June 30, 2007.

     

    An
      event
      of default hereunder shall be deemed to occur if (i) the Undersigned shall
      cause
      or suffer Humphries Marketing Group, LLC to sell substantially all of its
      assets, or (ii) the undersigned fails to repay the note in full as per terms
      set
      forth herein.

     

    All
      notices and demands permitted or required to be given hereunder shall be in
      writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail, return receipt
      requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

    


    To
      the
      Undersigned:

    Steven
      E.
      Humphries

    Humphries
      Marketing Group, LLC

    16801
      Addison Road, Suite 310

    Addison,
      TX 75001

    


    To
      Holder:

    DealerAdvance,
      Inc.

    16801
      Addison Road, Suite 310

    Addison,
      TX 75001

     

    or
      at
      such other addresse(s) as may from time to time, be designated in writing.
      Any
      such notice or demand shall be deemed given at seven (7) business days after
      the
      date on which the sealed envelope containing such notice or demand is deposited
      in the United States mail, properly addressed and with proper postage
      prepaid.

    


    The
      Undersigned agrees that in the event default occurs and this Note is placed
      in
      the hands of an attorney for collection, the Undersigned shall pay all costs
      of
      collection including reasonable attorney's fees.

    


    This
      note
      may not be terminated, modified, or amended orally, but only by an instrument
      in
      writing signed by the Holder.

    


    This
      note
      shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
      of
      Texas.

    


    


    


    By: 
      /s/
      Steven E. Humphries

      
        

      

    

    Steven
      E.
      Humphries,CEO

    Humphries
      Marketing Group, LLC

    


     

    /s/
      Steven E. Humphries

      
        

      

    

    Steven
      E.
      Humphries, Individually
#### Diane M. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; Dana Whitt, Lieutenant; Aurora Bullock, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 2008.

Decided: May 8, 2008.

Douglas R. Taylor, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, M. Cecilia Hellrung, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Diane M. Kent appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer and individual supervisors on her claims of retaliation and discrimination brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), 42 U.S.C. § 1985*315(2000), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *Doe v. Kidd,*501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1483, 170 L.Ed.2d 297 (2008). Summary judgment may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Kent v. Maryland Transp. Auth.,*No. 1:05-cv-02593-RDB (D.Md. May 1, 2007). 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.*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRIAN SUTHENO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72327

Agency No. A098-807-364

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Andrian Sutheno, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72327

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary

v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for

review.

 The record does not compel the conclusion that Sutheno established

extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sutheno’s experiences

in Indonesia, including the bombing of his church, did not rise to the level of past

persecution, see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Sutheno failed to

demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because, even as a member of

a disfavored group, he did not establish sufficient individualized risk. See Hoxha

v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Sutheno’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

 Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Sutheno failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured

upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of China Direct, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Wang, CEO 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 the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

May 9, 2007                         /s/ Yuejian (James) Wang
                                    ------------------------
                                    Yuejian (James) Wang, CEO,
                                    principal executive officer


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
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.
EXHIBIT 10.9

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
 BRIGHTEC
    ooo Be Brilliant.
                                     ADVANCED LUMITECH INC. d/b/a BRIGHTEC
                                     8c Pleasant Street, First Floor
                                     South Natick, MA 01760

                                     508/647-9710 T
                                     508/647-9711 F

                                     pplanche@brightec.com
                                     www.brightec.com

April 6, 2005

David Geffen
11 Clover Terrace
South Natick, Massachusetts 01760


Dear David:

         This will confirm the agreement between Advanced Lumitech, Inc. d/b/a
Brightec (the "Company") and you concerning your agreement to allow the Company
to redeem, effective as of the date hereof, 15,767,145 shares (the "Shares") of
the Company's common stock, $.001 par value (the "Common Stock"), owned by you
in order to allow the Company to fulfill its commitments to issue shares of its
Common Stock to certain consultants and investors in the Company. In connection
with the Company's redemption of the Shares, the Company and you agree that the
Company shall not pay you any consideration in connection with the redemption,
provided, however, that the Company will use its best efforts to increase the
number of authorized shares of its Common Stock as soon as reasonably
practicable after the date hereof and that, upon such event, it will issue
15,767,145 replacement shares (the "Replacement Shares") to you (adjusted for
any stock split, stock dividend or similar recapitalization occurring after the
date hereof and prior to such issuance) for no additional consideration. The
Company further agrees that if the Company is sold prior to the issuance of the
Replacement Shares, whether pursuant to a merger, sale of all or substantially
all of the Company's assets or otherwise, you shall be treated as the owner of
such Replacement Shares for purposes of determining any proceeds of such
transaction distributable to you.

         Please execute the counterpart copy of this letter in the space
provided to indicate your agreement to the foregoing upon which this letter
shall become a binding agreement between the Company and you.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Advanced Lumitech, Inc.
                                       d/b/a Brightec


                                       By: /s/ PATRICK PLANCHE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Patrick Planche

Agreed and acceptable
this 6th day of April, 2005

/s/ DAVID GEFFEN
------------------------------
David Geffen
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Tony Oviedo, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 of GeoMet, Inc.; and

 

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

 

Date: April 29, 2015

 
| By         | /s/ Tony Oviedo             |   |
|------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| ** ** | **Tony Oviedo,**            |   |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |   |

 

1

----
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 Annual Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William
Turner, as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President - Finance of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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.



|Date: February 25, 2008 | /s/ William Turner
                      William TurnerChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President - Finance
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Lisa M. Rehm, Also Known as Lisa Rehm-Conway, Appellant, v Ford Motor Company et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 892]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a car accident, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion should not have been granted where the accident occurred in New York, plaintiff has an actual place of business in New York and defendants would not be prejudiced by having the action tried in New York *(see, Brodherson v Ponte &*
      *161
      *Sons,*209 AD2d 276; *compare, Martin v Mieth,*35 NY2d 414). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
Exhibit 34.1.2.2

[Letterhead of ERNST and YOUNG LLP]

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company)
complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling
Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform
(Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(vi),
1122(d)4(xi), 1122(d)4(xii) and 1122(d)4(xiii) are applicable to the activities
performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The
Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB are not
applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform
covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for the
Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in
compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were
limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the Platform. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006 for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 20, 2007