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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41251

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL KENNETH VALMORE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-242-1

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Kenneth Valmore has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Valmore has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Valmore’s arguments

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eat at Joe's,  Ltd., on Form
10-QSB for the quarter  ending June 30,  2006 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the undersigned,  Joseph
Fiore, Chief Executive Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: August 14, 2006


/s/ Joseph Fiore
Joseph Fiore
CEO, CFO, Chairman, Secretary, Director
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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.





                                       29
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3631 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

revise certain ethylene oxide emissions standards under the Clean Air 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2021 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself and Mr. HICE of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise certain ethylene oxide emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ETHYLENE OXIDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

6 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this sec7 tion as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall amend subpart O of 

8 part 63 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3631 IH

1 (1) to revise the standards for the emission of 

2 ethylene oxide under that subpart based on the re3 sults described in the report of the National Center 

4 for Environmental Assessment of the Environmental 

5 Protection Agency entitled ‘‘Evaluation of the Inha6 lation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide’’ and dated 

7 December 2016; 

8 (2) to apply maximum achievable control tech9 nology (within the meaning of the Clean Air Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)) requirements to chamber ex11 haust vents; and 

12 (3) to apply to area sources and major sources 

13 (as those terms are defined in section 112(a) of the 

14 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(a))) of ethylene 

15 oxide. 

16 (b) RESIDUAL RISK REVIEW.—Not later than 180 

17 days after the date on which the Administrator finalizes 

18 the revised standards required under subsection (a), the 

19 Administrator shall carry out a residual risk assessment 

20 pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 

21 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2)) with respect to the revised standards. 

22 (c) NOTIFICATION.— 

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after 

24 the Administrator learns of a violation of the stand25 ards revised under subsection (a), the Administrator 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3631 IH

1 shall notify the public of the violation in a manner 

2 determined to be appropriate by the Administrator. 

3 (2) FAILURE TO NOTIFY.—If the Administrator 

4 fails to notify the public under paragraph (1) by the 

5 end of the period described in that paragraph, the 

6 Inspector General of the Environmental Protection 

7 Agency shall carry out an investigation to deter8 mine— 

9 (A) the reason or reasons for which the 

10 Administrator failed to notify the public; 

11 (B) the public health risks associated with 

12 the failure of the Administrator to notify the 

13 public; and 

14 (C) any steps the Administrator should 

15 take to ensure the Administrator meets the re16 quirements described in paragraph (1) in the 

17 future. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
946 A.2d 102

#### Draye DURHAM, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 30, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Jurisdiction relinquished.
ET&T LICENSING AGREEMENT

This Agreement states that Electronic Transactions &
Technologies ("ET&T") does hereby license the
following ET&T products to Betting, Inc., a Missouri
corporation, for the exclusive global usage of
wagering by PERFECT originated ATM cards, credit
cards, and smart cards:

The PayMaster, defined as a stand alone terminal
that attaches to phone lines and which calls the
ET&T host processing center with bank data.

The SLICK, defined as a stand alone keyboard
terminal that attaches to phone lines and call the
ET&T host processing center with bank data that has
bypassed the Internet.

The PocketPay, defined as a pocket sized terminal
and telephone that sends bank data by wireless
transmission to the ET&T host processing center.

The TV Pin Pad Remote, defined as a set top box and
TV remote that sends bank data by landline dial up
transmission to the ET&T host processing center.

Each ET&T product is exclusively licensed to
Betting, Inc. on a global basis for the application
of PERFECT wagering at a licensing fee of $2,000,000
each.

The duration of the exclusive license is 20 years.

              Electronic Transactions & Technologies


Dated: March 27, 1998    By:_/s/  Thomas S. Hughes__
				Thomas S, Hughes, Chairman & CEO


                                       Betting, Inc.


Dated: March 27, 1998     By:_/s/_Thomas S. Hughes__
                    Thomas S. Hughes, Chairman & CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       514
<INVENTORY>                                     24,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,040
<PP&E>                                          81,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,961
<BONDS>                                        155,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (68,867)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,387
<SALES>                                        191,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,614
<CGS>                                          129,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   163
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,731
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0610. BERIS DANIEL v. ROBERT ADAMS, WARDEN et al.

Beris Daniel appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for a writ

of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, however, has appellate jurisdiction over all

cases involving habeas corpus. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4).

This appeal is therefore TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 01, 2017

11/01/2017
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



Date:  November 12, 2003                         /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                                 Title: President and Treasurer

                                                 A  signed   original   of  this
                                                 written  statement  required by
                                                 Section  906 has been  provided
                                                 to CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd. and
                                                 will be  retained by CNL Income
                                                 Fund IV, Ltd. and  furnished to
                                                 the   Securities  and  Exchange
                                                 Commission  or its  staff  upon
                                                 request.
*

 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-31148

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JOHN B. LEVY,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 85-298-M

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John B. Levy appealsfrom the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis.

He contendsthat his conviction violated Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), because the

Government’s theory of the case was that he committed fraud in seeking and obtaining a license to
-2-

operate an insurance company. Levy also contends that his disbarment is a continuing consequence

of his conviction and that his coram nobis petition should not be barred by the doctrine of laches. 

Levy’s superseding indictment alleged that he participated in a series of false representations

and fraudulent transactions to gain regulatory approval to purchase an insurance company, then to

pilfer that company’s assets in violation of an order of the Insurance Commission. The superseding

indictment alleged that the Insurance Commission and the citizens of Louisiana were defrauded by

Levy. However, the fraud alleged in the indictment included actual financial gain to Levy through

fraudulent transactions, some of which were designed to evade regulatory scrutiny. Levy does not

dispute that fraudulent acquisition of a company’s assets is within the scope of the federal fraud

statutes. He has not demonstrated that his conviction violated Cleveland and therefore has notshown

that the district court erred by denying petition for coram nobisrelief. See United States v. Esogbue,

357 F.3d 532, 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                        2,172,457
<SECURITIES>                  482,280
<RECEIVABLES>                 10,849,793
<ALLOWANCES>                  (110,000)
<INVENTORY>                   628,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              15,271,533
<PP&E>                        9,154,228
<DEPRECIATION>                (865,473)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                26,809,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         5,469,645
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      2,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    8,647,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  26,809,388
<SALES>                       36,040,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              36,040,278
<CGS>                         27,562,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 38,232,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,057,725
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,962,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (950,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,012,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,012,350)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.95)
        


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted for the
quarter ended November 30, 1996 Form 10-Q consolidated Balance Sheets and
Consolidated Statements of Operations as of May 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827830              
<NAME>                        WILDER RICHMAN HISTORIC PROPERTIES II L.P.      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         620,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,290,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,144,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,290,386
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,994
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               601,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (591,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (793.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F, as amended, of Aladdin
Knowledge Sytems Ltd.. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003
(the "Report"), I, Erez Rosen, Chief Financial Officer 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:

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

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

Date: March 15, 2005


/s/ Erez Rosen
-------------------------------------
Erez Rosen
Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00035-CR

Misty Lara Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 64552, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief. This Court has generously granted counsel five prior motions for extension of

time. On February 7, 2012, we notified counsel that his brief was overdue and that if we did not

receive a satisfactory response on or before February 17, a hearing before the trial court would be

ordered. In response, counsel filed a sixth motion for extension of time. In the motion, counsel

represents that he needs additional time to file his brief because he had been “unable to locate the

reporter’s record filed in this case” until the day he filed this motion and that he expects the brief to

be completed “very soon.”

A copy of the reporter’s record in this case was filed in this Court over one year ago,

on February 23, 2011. Appellant’s brief was first due in this Court on March 25, 2011. Under these

circumstances, we deny counsel’s motion for extension of time. We instead abate the cause and
remand it to the district court to hold a hearing in accordance with rule 38.8 of the rules of appellate

procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The district court shall hold a hearing immediately to

determine whether appellant still wishes to prosecute her appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and

whether counsel has abandoned the appeal. See id. If appellant desires to appeal and is indigent, the

district court should make appropriate orders to ensure that appellant is adequately represented on

appeal. See id. Following the hearing, the district court should order the appropriate supplementary

clerk’s and reporter’s records to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than April 2, 2012.

See id.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Abated

Filed: March 2, 2012

Do Not Publish

2
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eat at Joe’s, Ltd., on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Joseph Fiore, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





Date:
August 14,
2008








/s/ Joseph
Fiore


Joseph
Fiore


CEO, CFO,
Chairman, Secretary, Director


(Principal
Executive & Accounting 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.
2014-0485.

#### SRMOF 2009-1 Trust v. Lewis.

Butler App. Nos. CA2012-11-239 and CA2013-05-068, 2014-Ohio-71. This cause is pending before the court on the certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for Butler County. On May 14, 2014, this court determined that a conflict existed on both issues identified by the court of appeals and held Issue 2 for *CitiMortgage, Inc., v. Roznowski.*It is *ordered by*the court that judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski,*139 Ohio St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984,11 N.E.3d 1140. Briefing shall continue on Issue 1.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J.,

dissents from the disposition of Issue 2 for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in *CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski,*139 Ohio St.3d 299, 2014-Ohio-1984, 11 N.E.3d 1140.