alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Harold MOORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph L. MCGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-57192.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 8, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 12, 2007.

Robert Harold Moore, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Diane E. Berley, Esq., West Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Analee J. Brodie, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The district court dismissed with prejudice Moore’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Moore appeals. The facts and prior proceedings are repeated herein only as necessary.

Moore argues that the trial court violated his due process rights both by allowing defense witness Bruce Snyder (“Snyder”) to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and by refusing to grant Snyder immunity to testify at Moore’s tri*625al. Under either claim of error, a grant of Moore’s petition would be warranted only if the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).1

Moore was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine on a theory of aiding and abetting. Moore admitted to the police that he lived at the residence where the methamphetamine lab was housed, that he was paid for allowing the methamphetamine manufacturers to operate there, and that his fingerprints might be found on the equipment used in the production of methamphetamine, some of which he had provided and helped to set up. Further, a search of Moore’s residence located physical items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, scales, and a white crystalline substance. The state court, whose findings of fact are not in dispute and are owed deference by this court, found Snyder not to be a credible witness. Thus, we agree with the district court that any testimony from Snyder supporting Moore’s denial of involvement in manufacturing methamphetamine would have been thoroughly undermined by Moore’s own admissions and the corroborating physical evidence. We are satisfied that any error either in allowing Snyder to invoke his right to remain silent or in refusing to grant immunity would not have had a substantial and injurious effect or influence upon the jury’s verdict.

The district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Moore’s petition is therefore

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Moore cites no clear authority for his contention that the decision not to grant immunity amounts to "structural error” and is therefore not subject to harmless error review. Prior cases have reviewed such error under the *Brecht*standard. *See United States v. Young,*86 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir.1996); Un*ited States v. Baker,*10 F.3d 1374, 1415 (9th Cir.1993) (overruled on other grounds).
#### Marie Inez CRAVENS, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Abner Cravens, Deceased, and All Wrongful Death and Survival Action Beneficiaries; Tony Cravens; Natasha Cravens; Lorreta Cravens, as Next Friend of LC, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LaMARQUE, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-40736.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 16, 2007.

Scot G. Dollinger, Dollinger Law, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William S. Helfand, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams *&*Martin, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The court has heard oral argument and reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. As the district court found, the appellants failed to establish that a § 1983 cause of action exists in the Fifth Circuit on the state-created-danger theory under these facts. *See Saenz v. Heldenfels Bros., Inc.,*183 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, there can be no municipal liability.

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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Odell CRAWFORD, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-6991.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 4, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 11, 2011.

*724Seth Allen Neyhart, Stark Law Group, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Odell Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. 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 certificate of ap-pealability 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 Crawford 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.*
#### Oscar Flaviano SALGADO-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 24, 2011.

Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization, Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Flaviano Salgado-Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Salgado-Ocampo does not challenge the agency’s determination that his conviction for violating Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.44.083 constitutes aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Salgado-Ocampo’s contention that his conviction qualified for treatment under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and should not have been used to sustain the charge of removability is foreclosed by *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2007).

*978Respondent shall serve a copy of this disposition on Salgado-Ocampo at his last known address.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9tli Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everardo SALAZAR-PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50672

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Everardo Salazar-Peralta raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report of Kentucky USA Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Eversole, 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





/s/ Steven D.
  Eversole


Name:
Steven D. Eversole


Title:  
Chief Executive Officer


Date:  
May 1, 2010
### **EXHIBIT 32.01**

### **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE**

### **OFFICER AND PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Gerald Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer and I,Helen D. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc. (“RJOFM”),the Managing Owner of JWH Global Trust (the “Trust”), certify that: (i) theattached Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information containedin the attached Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

 
| /s/ Gerald Corcoran               |   |                                    | /s/ Helen D. McCarthy |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
| Gerald Corcoran                        |   | Helen D. McCarthy                       |
| Chief Executive Officer                |   | Chief Financial Officer                 |
| (principal executive officer)          |   | (principal financial officer)           |
| RJ. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc. |   | R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc. |
| June 12, 2007                          |   | June 12, 2007                           |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOUTHEAST ACQUISITIONS II, LP FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         106,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   102
<PP&E>                                         800,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 924,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     918,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   924,410
<SALES>                                        105,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,023
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,023
<EPS-BASIC>                                       8.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.83


</TABLE>
LaSalle Bank
      N.A.135 South
      LaSalle StreetSuite
      1625Chicago, IL
      60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services




Annual Statement of
Compliance




VIA:
EMAIL




Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250
Vesey Street


4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor


New
York, New York 10080




Home Loan Services,
Inc.


150
Allegheny Center Mall


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212




Re:
      Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust,
Series 2007-A






Reference is made
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of August 1,
2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Home Loan
Services, Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee,
relating to Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-A,
Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates




I, Barbara L.
Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee
hereby certify that:




(1) A review of
the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the
performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and




(2) To the best of
my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or
a portion thereof.






Date: February
27, 2008




LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee






/s/ Barbara L. Marik


Barbara
L. Marik


Senior
Vice President
2009-1292.

#### State ex rel. Doner v. Logan.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On October 23, 2009, the court referred this case to a master commissioner for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and making all necessary determinations and rulings in regard thereto.

Upon consideration of respondents’ motion for expedited response and ruling on the motion for an order regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and for proceeding with expert discovery,

It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Pfeifer, Acting C.J.

Cupp, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55523]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 887


Housing Vouchers

CFR Correction

    In Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 700 to 1699, 
revised as of May 1, 2001, part 887 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 01-55523 Filed 8-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ BANNUM, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
UNITED STATES, ALSTON WILKES SOCIETY, INC. , Defendants

- Appellees

______________________
2015

- 5037

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00822

- MBH, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
J USTIN H UFFMAN , Camardo Law Firm, P.C., Auburn, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by J OSEPH A. C AMARDO , J R

.
J AMES R. S WEET , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC , argued for appellee United States. Also repr esented by A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., B ENJAMIN C. M IZER

.J AMES L YNN W ERNER , Parker, Poe, Adams & Ber nstein, LLP, Columbia, SC, argued for appellee Alston Wilkes Society, Inc. Also represent ed by L AWRENCE H ERSHON

.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, N EWMAN and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Daniel J. Taylor, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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 registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness 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 onsuch evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially 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 overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:October 28, 2004
2009-1281.

#### Kuhar v. Marc Glassman, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 91989, 2009-Ohio-2379.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-94636,
No. 33-92256, No. 33-92258, No. 333-41948 and No. 333-43049) pertaining to the Ultimate Electronic, Inc. 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan, the Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, respectively, of
Ultimate Electronics, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2002.

|                                |  | /s/ Ernst & Young
|------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Denver, Colorado
March 25, 2002 |  |                  

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                          13,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,607
<INVENTORY>                                     83,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,787
<PP&E>                                         128,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,091
<BONDS>                                        135,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,258
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,609
<SALES>                                        303,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               303,523
<CGS>                                          249,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>