alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 215 -CR

Ja m ie Je r om e Win gwoo d , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -20 4312 , HO NORAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A ju r y f o u n d a p p e ll an t Ja mi e Je r o me Wi n g w o o d g u il ty o f a g g r a v a te d assault. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 2 2. 02 (We st S up p. 20 06 ). Th e jur y a sse sse d p un ish me nt at te n y e ars ’ imp ri so nme nt. Ap pe lla

nt’ s c ourt -a

pp oin te d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pen so n v. Oh io , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S.W.2 d 807 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App . 197 2) ; Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant also filed a pro se br ief.2 We have r eviewe d the record, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief

. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Oc tober 24, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION

I, Charles F. Catlett, III, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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



(c)

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal annual that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 30, 2004





/s/ Charles F. Catlett, III



Charles F. Catlett, III, Senior Vice

President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000             JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         650,018               2,110,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,875,719               1,549,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,277                  89,569
<INVENTORY>                                    824,291                 673,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,479,704               4,277,778
<PP&E>                                       3,194,016               2,497,874
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,173,827                 890,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,080,952               5,885,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,579,872                 877,279
<BONDS>                                        570,024                 427,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     5,207,168               3,491,630
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,723,888               1,089,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,080,952               5,885,335
<SALES>                                      9,725,611               6,639,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,725,611               6,639,219
<CGS>                                        6,845,307               4,497,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,986,194               1,422,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (61,110)                (79,903)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,208,939                 799,829
<INCOME-TAX>                                   396,607                 299,061
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            812,332                 500,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   812,332                 500,768
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.39                    0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39                    0.26



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.6(b)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P.
    
    Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II
    By:
    
    /s/ Jennifer Magro

Jennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & DirectorECKHARDT TRADING COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ John D. FornengoPrint Name:  John D. FornengoJM/sr
**Exhibit 23.1**



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3
(No. 333-118487 and No. 333-22419) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-27429 and No. 333-88430) of
Associated Estates Realty Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2006 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appear in this form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Cleveland, Ohio

February 28, 2006
#### Michael Andre ARTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William ROOTS, Jr., Lawyer; Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-7238.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2011.

*702Michael Andre Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Andre Artis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S:C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 the record and conclude that Artis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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.*
**Exhibit 31.2**
**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION:**
I, Patrick G. Mackey, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of Novo Networks, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report. 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this Quarterly Report. 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisQuarterly Report, is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this QuarterlyReport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this Quarterly Report, based on suchevaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004                                             /s/ Patrick G. Mackey   Patrick G. Mackey   Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel E. Berce, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 27, 2010



/s/ Daniel E. BerceDaniel E. BercePresident and Chief Executive Officer




---

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chris A. Choate, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 27, 2010



/s/ Chris A. ChoateChris A. ChoateExecutive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer
#### Daniel SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72998.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 9, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Peter James Musser, Peter James Mus-ser, A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sarah Maloney, OIL, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN, Senior District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

*554MEMORANDUM ***

Daniel Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying Sanchez’s application for cancellation of removal. Sanchez is a 29-year-old Mexican national who arrived in the United States as a young child. Although both of his parents became lawful permanent residents, Sanchez never became a lawful permanent resident himself. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security placed Sanchez in removal proceedings. During those proceedings, the immigration judge denied Sanchez’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), on the basis that Sanchez never obtained lawful permanent resident status. The BIA affirmed. On appeal, Sanchez argues that he may impute his parents’ legal statuses to himself to meet the eligibility criteria set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), relying on *Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder,*580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and *Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.2005).

After Sanchez filed his petition, the Supreme Court decided *Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez,*— U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2011, 182 L.Ed.2d 922 (2012), upholding the BIA’s interpretation of § 1229b(a), which requires each applicant seeking cancellation of removal to meet the statutory requirements individually, without counting a parent’s years of continuous residence or lawful permanent resident status. Because *Mercado-Zazueta*and *Cuevas-Gas-par*are no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), *see Sawyers v. Holder,*684 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir.2012), we must reject Sanchez’s argument that his parents’ legal statuses can be imputed to himself.

As there is no dispute that Sanchez is not a lawful permanent resident himself, we uphold the BIA’s order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT
  WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Effective on the date hereof, the Agreement is amended as follows:
      Additional Payments Specified Employee Interest




---



##### 



Delayed Payment Date
 2.
    
    In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.3.
    
    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and
all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 TechTeam Global, Inc.By:
    /s/ Michael SosinTitle: Vice President, General Counsel/s/ Armin PresslerArmin Pressler 2
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O NO T P UB LI SH ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1188 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 39 4- CR-T-2 7- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us W ILMER EDELBERTO BALMA, a. k. a. W ilm er

E dil be rt o P al m a- T or

re s, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appea l from

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 8, 200 7) Before AN DE RSO N, DU BIN A and BARKET T, Circuit Judges PE R CU RIA M: T odd H
. S ei de n, , appoi nte d c ouns el f or W ilm er E de lbe rt o B al m a in this dir ec t c ri m ina l a

ppe al , ha s m ove d to w ith dr awf ro m f urthe r re pr es en tatio n of

the ap pe llant and f

ile d abr ie f pur suant t o A nde rs v . Ca lif orni a , 386 U. S. 738, 87 S.2

Ct. 1396 , 18 L . E d. 2d 493 (196 7). Our independent reviewof the entire r ecord
rev eal s t ha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Beca use independ ent exam ination of the entire r ecord re veals no arguable issues of m er it, c ouns el ’ s m oti on t o w ith dr awis GRA NTE D , and B al m a’ s c onvi ct ion and sentence are AF FIRMED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Fiscal 1996 Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference 
to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                          65,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,690,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    478,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,322,353      
<PP&E>                                      14,952,831     
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,854,472   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,882,938     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,265,686   
<BONDS>                                     11,456,483 
<COMMON>                                        35,451
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,125,318      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,882,938        
<SALES>                                     17,404,528         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,404,528         
<CGS>                                        9,885,964         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,885,964         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,562,552      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             503,301      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,171,280)      
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,171,280)     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0     
<CHANGES>                                  (1,406,050) 
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,577,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
<FN>

Effective August 1, 1995, the Company changed its method of accounting for new 
account allowances from the capitalization method to expensing the costs as 
incurred. The change has been applied retroactively and results in a cumulative 
effect adjustment.

</FN>
        

</TABLE>