alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James NIBLOCK, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Niblock, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 10-7065, 10-7066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 26, 2011.

James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Niblock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions (1) to expedite a ruling on his motion to alter or amend the judgment; (2) to dismiss as moot; (3) to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence; and (4) to enforce the plea agreement by specific performance. The court ruled that these were all attempts to file successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motions without authorization from the court of appeals.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate 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 motion 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 Niblock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Niblock’s motion to supplement the record, deny his motion for a certificate of appeal-ability, and dismiss the appeals. 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,791
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,995
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     78,853
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,394
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,453
<LOANS>                                        195,684
<ALLOWANCE>                                        604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,315
<DEPOSITS>                                     206,438
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,928
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,344
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 295,315
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,947
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,542
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   108
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,597
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,488
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,793
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,804
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,020
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,020
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.85
<LOANS-NON>                                        861
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    861
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   604
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  604
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               203
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            401
        

</TABLE>
December 5, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILLIAM EDWARD ERICKSON, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00767-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED to delete the 

specific amount of court costs.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
|Range                | States 
|-------------------- | -------
|$0                   | 5 + DC 
|$0.1 - $1.0 billion  | 10     
|$1.1 - $5.0 billion  | 18 + PR
|$5.1 - $15.0 billion | 10     
|> $15.1 billion      | 7      

|State       | Total RTC Thrift Assets
|----------- | -----------------------
|AK          | 313                    
|AL          | 3,999                  
|AR          | 4,569                  
|AZ          | 19,399                 
|CA          | 85,697                 
|CO          | 4,028                  
|CT          | 1,029                  
|FL          | 35,169                 
|GA          | 4,422                  
|IA          | 3,194                  
|IL          | 12,081                 
|IN          | 349                    
|KS          | 16,605                 
|KY          | 484                    
|LA          | 9,369                  
|MA          | 6,456                  
|MD          | 8,046                  
|ME          | 133                    
|MI          | 1,295                  
|MN          | 3,705                  
|MO          | 7,797                  
|MS          | 2,608                  
|NC          | 3,300                  
|ND          | 1,157                  
|NE          | 1,823                  
|NH          | 364                    
|NJ          | 24,504                 
|NM          | 4,234                  
|NV          | 252                    
|NY          | 14,779                 
|OH          | 8,986                  
|OK          | 5,128                  
|OR          | 7,021                  
|PA          | 17,999                 
|PR          | 1,667                  
|RI          | 1,967                  
|SC          | 1,437                  
|SD          | 198                    
|TN          | 1,813                  
|TX          | 57,574                 
|UT          | 2,990                  
|VA          | 11,548                 
|WA          | 2,079                  
|WI          | 453                    
|WV          | 248                    
|WY          | 309                    
|Grand Total | 402,575                

Back to Chart
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  By:    |  /s/Marian Munz                                                        |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:  |  Marian Munz                                                           |
|  Title: |  Principal Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and Director |
|  Date:  |  April 15, 2010                                                        |
|         |                                                                        |
| By:          | /s/ William White                                                           |
| Name:        |  William White                                                         |
|  Title: |  Chief Financial Officer                                               |
| Date:        |  April 15, 2010                                                        |
Exhibit 31(a)
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      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 annual 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; andd)
    
    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 the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Kevin L. BarnettKevin L. BarnettPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and
Director
EXHIBIT
      32.1








SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of Rim Semiconductor Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that
      to such officer's knowledge:





(1) The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended January
      31,
      2007 (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.





This
      certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
      for any other purpose.





March
      14,
      2007





/S/ BRAD
                KETCHBRAD
                KETCH
              PRESIDENT
                AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
                OFFICER)
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AESP, Inc.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this quarterly report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we 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
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b)
    
    intentionally omitted;  c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  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
controls over financial reporting. Date: August 20, 2004
    By:
    /s/ John F. WilkensName:
    John F. WilkensTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Teaming Agreement for Implementation of the 
Advanced Gun Systems Program

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 17, 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 Defense, L.P. has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identifies of the parties 
and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provision limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are United Defense, L.P., Arlington, VA; and General 
Dynamics Armament Systems, Inc., Burlington, VT which are controlled by 
UDLP Holding Corporation, Washington, DC; and United Defense 
Industries, Inc., Washington, DC respectively. The nature of the 
venture is the development of the Advanced Gun Systems (``AGS'') 
Program. The U.S. Navy currently is developing its next generation 
class of destroyers, the DD-21. The overall requirement for the DD-21 
is to provide the equivalent of land-based artillery gunfire until 
Marine and Army maneuver forces are established ashore, then assist 
those forces in fire support. The primary armament for the DD-21 is the 
AGS which is currently in the concept development and trade studies 
stage.
    The objective of the parties is to form an exclusive team for all 
phases and stages of the AGS Program, including further system 
development and production.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-5719 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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  In connection with the Annual Report of Blackbird Petroleum Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Antonio Treminio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (3)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   (4)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   February 24, 2010  /s/ Antonio Treminio Antonio Treminio, Principal, Accounting Officer
Exhibit 15


Accountants' Acknowledgment





To the Board of Directors and the Shareholders of Pfizer Inc.:





We hereby acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 8, 2014 , included within the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pfizer Inc. for the quarter ended March 30, 2014 , in the following Registration Statements:


-Form S-8 dated October 27, 1983 (File No. 2-87473),


-Form S-8 dated March 22, 1990 (File No. 33-34139),


-Form S-8 dated January 24, 1991 (File No. 33-38708),


-Form S-8 dated November 18, 1991 (File No. 33-44053),


-Form S-8 dated May 27, 1993 (File No. 33-49631),


-Form S-8 dated May 19, 1994 (File No. 33-53713),


-Form S-8 dated October 5, 1994 (File No. 33-55771),


-Form S-8 dated December 20, 1994 (File No. 33-56979),


-Form S-8 dated March 29, 1996 (File No. 33-02061),


-Form S-8 dated September 25, 1997 (File No. 333-36371),


-Form S-8 dated April 24, 1998 (File No. 333-50899),


-Form S-8 dated April 22, 1999 (File No. 333-76839),


-Form S-8 dated June 19, 2000 (File No. 333-39610),


-Form S-8 dated April 27, 2001 (File No. 333-59660),


-Form S-8 dated April 27, 2001 (File No. 333-59654),


-Form S-8 dated April 16, 2003 (File No. 333-104581),


-Form S-8 dated April 16, 2003 (File No. 333-104582),


-Form S-8 dated November 18, 2003 (File No. 333-110571),


-Form S-8 dated December 18, 2003 (File No. 333-111333),


-Form S-8 dated April 26, 2004 (File No. 333-114852),


-Form S-8 dated March 1, 2007 (File No. 333-140987),


-Form S-4 dated March 27, 2009 (File No. 333-158237),


-Form S-8 dated October 16, 2009 (File No. 333-162519),


-Form S-8 dated October 16, 2009 (File No. 333-162520),


-Form S-8 dated October 16, 2009 (File No. 333-162521),


-Form S-8 dated March 1, 2010 (File No. 333-165121) and


-Form S-3 dated May 10, 2012 (File No. 333-181321).





Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.





/s/KPMG LLP


New York, New York


May 8, 2014
#### Luddy ANGIRA; Keens Omondi Oyugi, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-2105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 30, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2011.

Kell Enow, Enow *&*Associates, Marietta, Georgia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Luddy Angira and her husband, derivative applicant Keens Oyugi, both natives and citizens of Kenya, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of Angira’s applications for relief from removal.

Petitioners first challenge the determination that Angira failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Angira cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); *INS v. Cardozar-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that *715Angira failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Kenya. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[No. 58829-0-I.

Division One.

September 17, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Anthony Jamal Scott, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 06-1-00014-0, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered September 8, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.