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

No. 06-2132.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 10, 2007.

David N. Williams, Asst. U.S. Attorney, David C. Iglesias, U.S. Attorney, Office of *773the United States Attorney District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carmelo Callejas, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Carmelo Callejas in 2001 on five counts of criminal conduct. He was sentenced to 248 months in prison. This Court has twice affirmed that sentence — once on direct appeal, *United States v. Callejas,*66 Fed.Appx. 826 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished), and again in dismissing Mr. Callejas’s application for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, *United States v. Callejas,*137 Fed. Appx. 175 (10th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Mr. Callejas brought a third challenge to his sentence, which he styled as a “Motion to Eliminate Enhancements and Reduce Sentence.” The district court dismissed his motion, holding that Mr. Callejas could collaterally challenge his sentence only via § 2255. Mem. & Order, 1-3.

The district court is correct. Section 2255 provides the exclusive means for collateral attack of a federal criminal sentence. *Baker v. Sheriff of Santa Fe County,*477 F.2d 118, 119 (10th Cir.1973). We note, however, that even were Mr. Callejas to petition this Court to authorize a second § 2255 application, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3), his petition would fail. Defendants may not raise a *Booker*claim in a second or successive § 2255 motion, as *Booker*did not announce a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law. *Bey v. United States,*399 F.3d 1266, 1268-69 (10th Cir.2005).

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2555 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2555

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 14 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 100 East Fifth Street in 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, as the ``Potter Stewart United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 100 East Fifth Street in 
Cincinnati, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ``Potter Stewart 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Potter Stewart 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2657 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2657

  To direct the Coast Guard to establish the Gulf of Mexico Regional 
               Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Coast Guard to establish the Gulf of Mexico Regional 
               Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center.

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

SECTION 1. GULF OF MEXICO REGIONAL FISHERIES LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING 
              CENTER.

    The Coast Guard shall establish the Gulf of Mexico Regional 
Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center in the Eighth Coast Guard 
District in Southeastern Louisiana. The purpose of the Gulf of Mexico 
Regional Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center shall be to increase 
the skills and training of Coast Guard fisheries law enforcement 
personnel and to ensure that such training considers and meets the 
unique and complex needs and demands of the fisheries of the Gulf of 
Mexico.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q/A of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the Report), I, Kendra A. Borrego, Chief Financial Officer of IMPAC Medical
Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc..
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                         
|-------------- |  | ------------------------
|April 16, 2004 |  | /s/    KENDRA A.
BORREGO
|               |  | Kendra A. Borrego       
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 32.02


                                  Certification

            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)

         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), the
undersigned officer of Interactive Systems Worldwide Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
(the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company 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-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 16, 2005

                                       By: /s/ James McDade
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           James McDade
                                           Chief Financial Officer

    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 1360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-501]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Wednesday, January 10, 2001.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 2lst Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551

Status: Open

Matters to be Considered:   

Discussion Agenda

    1. Consideration of a final rule under Regulation Y (Bank Holding 
Companies and Change in Bank Control) to implement provisions of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act governing merchant banking investments made by 
financial holding companies (Docket No. R-1065). This rule revises and 
replaces an interim rule published for comment last year.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

    Note: This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those 
unable to attend. Cassettes will be available for listening in the 
Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies may be ordered for 
$6 per cassette by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of 
Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.


Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded 
announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site 
at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The 
Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open 
meeting.)

    Dated: January 3, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-501 Filed 1-4-01; 11:05 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 5.1














[Letterhead of Davis Graham and Stubbs LLP]





June 28, 2013





PDC Energy, Inc.


1775 Sherman Street, Suite 3000


Denver, Colorado 80203





Ladies and Gentlemen:





We have acted as counsel to PDC Energy, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). This letter is being delivered in connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”), relating to the registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), of up to 1,600,000 shares of Company common stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Shares”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Equity Compensation Plan of PDC Energy, Inc. (the “Plan”).  In such connection, we have examined the Registration Statement and the Plan. We have also examined the originals, or duplicates or certified or conformed copies, of such corporate and other records, agreements, documents and other instruments and have made such other investigations as we deemed relevant and necessary in respect of the authorization and issuance of the Shares, and such other matters as we deemed appropriate.





In rendering the opinion set forth below, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the legal capacity of natural persons, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as duplicates or certified or conformed copies, and the authenticity of the originals of such latter documents.





Based upon the foregoing, and subject to the limitations, qualifications, exceptions and assumptions expressed herein, we are of the opinion that the Shares have been duly authorized and, when and to the extent issued in accordance with the terms of the Plan, including payment of any applicable exercise price therefor, will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.





This opinion is given as of the date hereof and we have no obligation to update this opinion to take into account any change in applicable law or facts that may occur after the date hereof.  We hereby consent to be named in the Registration Statement and in the Prospectus constituting a part thereof, as amended from time to time, as the attorneys who will pass upon legal matters in connection with the issuance of the Shares, and to the filing of this opinion as an Exhibit to the aforesaid Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act or the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Very truly yours,/s/ Davis Graham & Stubbs LLPDavis Graham & Stubbs LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasir ABDUL-ALI also known as, Donald Ray Reed, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-60166.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 9, 2007.

Robert Henry Norman, William Chadwick Lamar, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for PlaintiffAppellee.

C. Jackson Williams, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

*398PER CURIAM: *

Nasir Abdul-Ali appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.

The parties and the district court, under our decision in *United States v. Pigrum,*922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.1991), focus on whether the officers relied in good faith upon the search warrant, rather than addressing whether probable cause supported the warrant. This is a unique situation in which the easier question is whether probable cause supported the warrant; we hold that it did. Officer Jones, the search warrant affiant, followed Abdul-Ali from the house at 100 February Street, witnessed the controlled sale, and followed Abdul-Ali back to the general location of the house. These facts supply probable cause to believe that Abdul-Ali stashed drugs in the house.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--United Technologies Research Center

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 11, 2000, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), United Technologies Corporation 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Inc., Stafford Springs, CT; 
and Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI have been dropped as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and United Technologies Corporation 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On March 11, 1999, United Technologies Corporation filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27604).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-4703 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
|    |                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |  |  |
| /s/ Barton R. Brookman                                 |   | August 9, 2016 |
| Barton R. Brookman                                     |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                  |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
| /s/ R. Scott Meyers                                    |   | August 9, 2016 |
| R. Scott Meyers                                        |   |   |
| Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEW VISUAL
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 31, 2000 AND
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29
<PP&E>                                             311
<DEPRECIATION>                                     220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                       (143)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      (73)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (284)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (284)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (284)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, W. Lance Anderson, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive 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: July 10, 2009 | /s/ W. Lance Anderson                       
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                    | W. Lance
      Anderson                     
|                    | Chairman of the
      Board of Directors and
|                    | Chief Executive
      Officer               

This certification is made solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained
therein, and not for any other purpose.

---
“On January 16, 2009, the FDIC retained Pereila Weinberg Partners LP to provide
financial advisory services to the FDIC for a period of up to two years. This contract
provides that Perella Weinberg Partners LP will receive monthly financial advisory fees,
with limited reimbursement of expenses, provided Perella Weinberg Partners LP may not
receive compensation in excess of $9,120,000 over a two-year period.”