alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Omar SITTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Blaine C. LAFLER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-2203.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 28, 2008.

BEFORE: RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner, Omar Sitto, was convicted in a Michigan court of a drug conspiracy offense. His state court efforts to have his conviction set aside were not successful. He then sought federal *habeas*relief in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, again without success. He now appeals the district court’s judgment, arguing that the Michigan state courts deprived him of his right to due process by refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing or grant a new trial based on his claim of newly discovered evidence; that he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct denied him a fair trial. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.

The district court correctly concluded that the Michigan courts did not violate *382Sitto’s federal due process right by refusing to grant a hearing on his claim that newly discovered evidence showed that a key witness perjured himself at trial; that Sitto has not shown that he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct did not deny him a fair trial.

In a comprehensive and well-written opinion, the district court judge, the Honorable David M. Lawson, set forth in detail the reasons why Sitto’s claims are without merit. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusion and we add only that we continue to adhere to the rule that a free-standing innocence claim is not cognizable for *habeas*review. *Cress v. Palmer,*484 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir.2007).

II.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in its opinion denying Sitto’s *habeas*petition. *See Sitto v. Bock,*No. 00-10267-BC, 2006 WL 2559765 (E.D.Mich. Aug.30, 2006).
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Eyal WaldmanName:
    Eyal WaldmanTitle:
    President and Chief Executive 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 April 11, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OGf9VGT4A9\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-11-2022\/\">Applicants April 11, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-11-2022\/embed\/#?secret=OGf9VGT4A9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants April 11, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"OGf9VGT4A9\" 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"}
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 23, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-SL2


Per Section 4.15 (a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
3/1/2006, the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities
Administrator), hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or
portion thereof:


(A) A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
    or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
    has been made under such officer's supervision.

(B) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
    has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, in all material
    respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a
    failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying
    each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.

(C) Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the extent
    of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications or
    assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of noncompliance
    related to the subject transaction for the applicable reporting period are
    identified on Schedule A hereto.

Certified By:
/s/Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary

(page)

Schedule A

Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has
been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.
<PAGE>




                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    Subsidiaries of BHA Group Holdings, Inc.


BHA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; PrecipTech, Ltd., a Canadian
corporation; BHA Group, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; BHA International, Inc., a
U.S. Virgin Islands corporation; BHA Group GmbH, a German corporation; BHA Group
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and BHA Technologies, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; BHA Purfilter S.L., a Spanish corporation; and BHA Group
International Holdings B.V., a Dutch corporation, are the only subsidiaries of
the Company, each of which are wholly-owned. Tool Rental and Supply Company,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Midwest Precipitator Corporation, an Illinois
corporation (DBA Midwest Power Corporation); BHA Group AG, a Swiss corporation;
BHA Environmental Technology Company, Ltd., a China corporation; and BHA Group
Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
BHA Group, Inc. BHA Group International Pvt. Ltd., an India corporation, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Group International, Inc.; BHA Technologies AG, a
Swiss corporation; and BHA Technologies K.K., a Japan corporation, are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of BHA Technologies, Inc.; BHA Group, C.A., a
Venezuelan corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Purfilter S.L.; BHA
do Brazil Ltda, a Brazilian corporation; and BHA U.K. Ltd., a United Kingdom
corporation, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of BHA Group International Holdings
B.V.
EXHIBIT 32

                                   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 quarterly report of Califonria Service Stations, Inc.
(the  "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004,  Jehu
Hand 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 the best of
his knowledge:

            (1)   The quarterly  report fully complies with the  requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The  information  contained  in the  quarterly  report  fairly
                  presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
February 18, 2005





<PAGE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, I, Basil R Parker, certify that:

To the best of my  knowledge  and belief,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  July  16,  2003  by
Westminster  Auto Retailers  Inc., and to which this  certification  is appended
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained  in the  Quarterly  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Westminster Auto Retailers Inc.



                                        /s/ Basil R Parker
                                        -----------------------
                                        Basil R Parker
                                        Chief Executive Officer,
                                        Chairman and President



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Westminster Auto Retailers Inc., and will be retained by Westminster
Auto Retailers Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
**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**





I,
      James
      J. Vincenzo, Chief Financial Officer of Theater Xtreme entertainment Group,
      Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2006 :





(1)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      that
      the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Theater Xtreme
      Entertainment Group, Inc.









Dated:
      May 15, 2006





/s/
                James J. VincenzoJames
                J. Vincenzo, Chief Financial
                Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
      that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52291-52292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24458]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-241-000]

Luz Solar Partners Ltd., V; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Luz Solar Partners Ltd., V's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 24, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC

[[Page 52292]]

Online service, please email [email protected]. or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24458 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SMALL
                                BUSINESS ISSUER
 
The Fresh Juice Company of New York, Inc.
State of Incorp.:    New Jersey
Doing Business As: The Ultimate Juice Company
 
The Fresh Juice Company of Florida, Inc.
State of Incorp.:    Florida
Doing Business As: The Fresh Juice Company of Florida, Inc.
 
The Fresh Juice Company of California, Inc.
State of Incorp.:    Delaware
Doing Business As: Hansen's Juices
                   Hansen's Fresh Juice Company
 
Manalba Foods, Inc.
State of Incorp.:    New York
Doing Business As: Manalba Foods, Inc.
 
Fresh Pik't Natural Foods, Inc.
State of Incorp.:    Delaware
Doing Business As: Fresh Pik't Natural Foods, Inc.
 
                                       29
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2016-03-14 16:27:29","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2016"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["14"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["7"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["6"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2016","quarter":"Q1"}
#### GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Glenn A. HOLMES et al.

No. 5553.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 5, 1957.

Cheek, Cheek & Cheek, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Carmon C. Harris, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.

Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed on joint motion of the parties.
#### Carole A. WALLACE; Dennis A. Wallace, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Barbara W. HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-50377

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 2016.

Carole A. Wallace, Austin, TX, pro se.

Dennis A. Wallace, Jr., Victoria, TX, pro se.

John J. McKetta, III, Esq., Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C., Austin, TX, Michael Edward Grimes, Round Rock, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding *pro se,*Carole A. Wallace and Dennis A. Wallace, Jr., appeal the dismissal, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, of their challenge to a state probate court’s ruling Barbara W. Hernandez is an heir of their mother, Ruby Greer Wallace. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); *Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The dismissal is reviewed *de novo. E.g., Lane v. Halliburton,*529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir.2008).

The Wallaces maintain they do not challenge the state-court judgment and only request a declaratory judgment to define their rights. Nevertheless, in expressly seeking the reversal of the state-court ruling that Hernandez is their relative, the Wallaces point to both the claimed deficiency of the DNA test relied upon by the state courts and the alleged inadequacies of Texas probate law, amounting to claimed constitutional violations of due process. “When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter *258jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” *Davis v. Bayless,*70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although *pro se*briefs are liberally 'construed, thé contentions in them must be adequately briefed to be preserved. *E.g., Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8). Because the Wallaces do not address the district court’s jurisdictional rulings under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine and concerning their due-process claims, they abandon any challenge they may have had to the court’s rulings. *See Yohey,*985 F.2d at 224-25; *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.