alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Of Chief Executive Officer And


Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant To


Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OCZ Technology Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of OCZ fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OCZ.





Date:  May 31, 2011/s/ Ryan M. PetersenRyan M. PetersenChief Executive OfficerDate:  May 31, 2011/s/ Arthur F. Knapp, Jr.Arthur F. Knapp, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – July 8, 2016","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DEMSM9kITT\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-8-2016\/\">Applicants – July 8, 2016<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-8-2016\/embed\/#?secret=DEMSM9kITT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – July 8, 2016” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"DEMSM9kITT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FAREED SEPEHRY

- FARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OREGON,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 14

- 17416

D.C. No. 5:14

- cv

- 02444

- EJD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Fareed Sepehry

- Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims against the S tate of

Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e review de novo a

dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amen dment immunity

. Micomonaco

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

NOV 7 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPE ALS2 14

- 17416

v. Washington , 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 199 5 ). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sepehry

- Fard’ s action against the S tate

of Oregon on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Franceschi v.

Schwartz , 57 F. 3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in

federal court for damages or injunctive relief against a state or an arm of the state);

see also Porter v. Jones , 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) ( distinguishing non

cognizable claims for retr ospective relief, such as damages, from generally

cognizable claims for prospective relief against state officials). In light of our

disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry

- Fard’s claims.

Sepehry

- Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due

process are unpersuasive

.

AFFIRMED.
a105-letteragreementrega






  GDSVF&H\8081730.3  TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS INC.  April 11, 2022  Jim Mullen  via email    Dear Mr. Mullen:  We are very pleased to inform you that TuSimple Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) has approved  providing you with the opportunity to earn a one-time cash retention bonus, subject to the terms in  conditions set forth in this letter agreement.   1. Retention Bonus   Subject to your continued employment with the Company or a wholly owned subsidiary thereof  through April 11, 2023 (the “Retention Date”), you will earn a retention bonus in an amount equal to  $500,000 (such bonus, the “Retention Bonus”).  While the Retention Bonus will not be earned by you  until the Retention Date, the Company will advance you the Retention Bonus within 30 days of the date  hereof.  The Retention Bonus will be fully taxable when paid, and all regular payroll taxes will be  withheld.  In the event of your resignation for any reason (other than due to death or Disability, as defined  in your Severance and Change in Control Agreement) [or if your employment is terminated by the  Company for Cause, as defined in your Severance and Change in Control Agreement], you will be  responsible for immediately reimbursing the Company for the full amount of the Retention Bonus, net of  any applicable withholding taxes and other deductions required by law, within 5 days following your  termination.  2. Miscellaneous  This letter agreement supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, representations or  understandings (whether written, oral, implied or otherwise) between you and the Company relating to the  subject matter herein.  In addition, this letter agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, and  by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all  of which together will constitute the same instrument.  For the avoidance of doubt, if you do not remain  continuously employed with the Company through the Retention Date, you will not be entitled to retain  any portion of the Retention Bonus pursuant to this letter agreement.     Except for the additional terms contained herein, the terms of your employment shall remain  unchanged.  Assuming you are in agreement with the terms hereof, please sign and return a copy of this  letter agreement to us by April 11, 2022.      Very truly yours,    TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS INC.  By:   /s/ Patrick Dillon    Patrick Dillon     





 






  2  GDSVF&H\8081730.3        I have read and I agree to the terms set forth in this letter agreement:  /s/ Jim Mullen       Signature of Jim Mullen     Dated: April 11, 2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sebastian RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO, aka: Alberto Rosas-Juarez Jose Reyes, Jose Herrera, Miguel Angel Solorzano, Jose Roberto Rosas, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-30376.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Rafael M. Gonzalez, Jr., Esq., Alan G. Burrow, USBO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert K. Schwarz, Federal Defenders of Idaho Inc., Boise, ID, for Defendant Appellant.

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 **

Sebastian Rodriguez-Carrillo appeals from his 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*653Rodriguez-Carrillo contends that the district court disregarded the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 598-599, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Rodriguez-Carrillo also contends that his sentence is unreasonable in that it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *See id.*at 600-602; *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Albert HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a correctional officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Sullivan, individual and official capacity (first name unknown), Defendant.

No. 09-56495.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 16, 2010.

Albert Hayes, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

*253Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Albert Hayes- (“Hayes”) still had administrative remedies available to him once he received a copy of the first-level response to his grievance. *See*Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3085(b). Accordingly, dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see *also Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (the proper remedy for non-exhaustion is dismissal without prejudice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s post-judgment motion to correct the docket. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 4.3



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated April 26, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 563 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 (File No. 333-262211) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 26, 2022
No. 887.

#### Roy Vermont et al., Petitioners, *v.*The United States.

May 16, 1910.

*Mr. Shepard Barclay*and-*Mr. Thomas T. Fauntleroy'*for the petitioners.

*The Attorney General, The Solicitor General*and *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr*for the-respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants April 1, 2024","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CZeR74K93G\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-1-2024\/\">Applicants April 1, 2024<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-1-2024\/embed\/#?secret=CZeR74K93G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants April 1, 2024” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"CZeR74K93G\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Hiring a Reputable Mover","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7iaouAxi7L\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/hiring-a-reputable-mover\/\">Hiring a Reputable Mover<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/hiring-a-reputable-mover\/embed\/#?secret=7iaouAxi7L\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Hiring a Reputable Mover” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7iaouAxi7L\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Consent of Ronald G. Simpson
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with, and to use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report, Blackwater Gold Project, British Columbia, prepared for New Gold Inc. dated effective March 7, 2012, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2011, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 
 
 
 Dated this  26th day of March, 2012
 
 
 "Ronald G. SImpson"
 
 Name:           Ronald G. Simpson, P.Geo
 Title:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2014

s0923 

# Order

Clerk September 26, 2014

150030

SC: 150030

In re AS C and EBW, Minors. COA: 320521

Lapeer CC Family Division:

13

- 003317

- RL; 13

- 003318

- RL

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order filed January 21, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00546-CV

____________

DI ANGELO PUBLICATIONS, INC., Appellant

V.

JENTRY KELLY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-80674-B

ORDER

This is an appeal from an order finalized by a severance order entered July 7, 

2020. The clerk’s record was filed October 26, 2020. 

Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the 

clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the July 7, 

2020 severance order.

Appellant failed to request that this item be included in the clerk’s record. 

We order appellant to request that the Harris County District Clerk prepares and 

files a supplemental clerk’s record on or before January 27, 2021, containing the 
July 7, 2020 severance order or face dismissal of this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
#### Luis Torres FALFAN; Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70913.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Law-firm, LLC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.

Aram A. Gavoor, Trial, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Torres Falfan and Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal of *310an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by misapplying the law to the facts of their case and disregarding their evidence of hardship are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

Petitioners’ motion to augment the record is denied. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Kalief HAYNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 10-6414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 29, 2010.

Kalief Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kalief Haynes seeks to appeal the district court’s amended order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed *793the record and conclude that Haynes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.*