alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Lawrence Williams, Jr., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report of Gateway Certifications, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008;  2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):  a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 31, 2009/s/ Lawrence Williams, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00366-CV

IN RE J.H. AND J.H., Relators §

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

362nd District Court of Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-4843-362

February 25, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and holds 

that the petition should be denied. Accordingly, we deny the writ of mandamus, and 

we lift our November 20, 2020 stay of proceedings.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 6, 2014





PDC Energy, Inc.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)








Nevada0-724695-2636730(State or other jurisdiction of(Commission(I.R.S. Employerincorporation or organization)File Number)Identification Number)





1775 Sherman Street, Suite 3000


Denver, Colorado 80203


(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)





Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 303) 860-5800








Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)








Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:


 ̈ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


 ̈ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








---







Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.





The following information is furnished pursuant to Item 2.02.





On May 6, 2014 , PDC Energy, Inc. issued a press release announcing its operating and financial results for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014 . A copy of the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated by reference herein.





The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K, including the exhibit hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.





Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.





(d) Exhibits


Exhibit No.Description99.1Press Release dated May 6, 2014, announcing results for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014.











---




SIGNATURE


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Date: May 6, 2014


PDC ENERGY, INC.By:/s/ Daniel W. AmidonDaniel W. AmidonSenior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary








---




EXHIBIT INDEX


Exhibit No.Description99.1Press Release dated May 6, 2014, announcing results for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014.
* 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. 97-40852 Summary Calendar

ROY JON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-960

- - - - - - - - - - March 18, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roy J on, a Texas prisoner (# 626840), appeals the district

court’s dismissal as frivolous of his pro se , in forma pauperis

(IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged that the

defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances; filed

false disciplinary reports against h im; threatened and verballyNo. 97-40852 - 2 -

abused him, improperly forfeited his good-time credits; and denied

him a meal; a shower, and clean clothes.

Jo n's waived his claim regarding good-time credits by not

briefing it on appeal. Y ohey v. Collins
, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). Jon's supplemental and amended briefs should not have

been filed as they are not au thorized under the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure or the rules of this court. S ee F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a), (c), (j); 5 TH C IR . R. 28.4. They are STRICKEN.

Jon argues that the magistrate judge improperly denied leave

to file a second amended complaint and that the district court

abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. We have reviewed the

record and Jon's allegations, and we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jon’s § 1983

action as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th

Cir. 1997).

Because Jon’s arguments of error are wholly witho ut merit,

this appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. S ee Howard v. King
, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE INITIAL BRIEF DENIED;

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS STRICKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40588

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CR-38-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel 

Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

May 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40588 Document: 00514972818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2019
No. 18-40588

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

 Case: 18-40588 Document: 00514972818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bobby Joe SIMMS, Appellant.

No. 05-1569.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 2, 2007.

Filed: April 11, 2007.

Brian J. Gepford, Gepford & Gepford, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Bobby Joe Simms, Rochester, MN, pro se.

Jim Y. Lynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Joe Simms (Simms) appeals the district court’s1 sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court ordered Simms’s sentence to run concurrently with a state sentence for drug-trafficking convictions. On appeal, Simms’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel in his *Anders*brief and Simms in a pro se supplemental brief argue the district court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by using judge-found facts at sentencing, which were neither admitted by Simms nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, to support the enhancements to Simms’s base offense level.

We hold there was no *Booker*error because the district court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 311-14, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Hines,*472 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (concluding after *Booker*judges can make factual findings as long as the United States Sentencing Guidelines are treated as advisory).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                               234
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                         138
<INVENTORY>                                       20,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  30,788
<PP&E>                                             6,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    37,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3,994
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              39
<OTHER-SE>                                        22,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      37,850
<SALES>                                           14,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  14,632
<CGS>                                              9,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      9,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                         756
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,464
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .37



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ, P.A., et al.

No. 08-1225.

June 8, 2009.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
#### Sergio Orlando CURIN-FRANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70813.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esquire, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Fascett, Oil, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, *25Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Orlando Curin-Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Curin-Franco’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than one year after the BIA’s final removal order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Curin-Franco failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also He,*501 F.3d at 1132 (changed personal circumstances insufficient to support an untimely motion to reopen).

Curin-Franco’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2








Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Frank A. D'Amelio, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pfizer Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 29, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pfizer Inc.








/s/ FRANK A. D'AMELIOFrank A. D'AmelioExecutive Vice President, Business Operations and Chief Financial OfficerMay 7, 2015








This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Rogelio ARCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI-WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent—Appellee, and Armando Mireles, DHO & ERT Commander; Michael Doporto, SIS, Respondents.

No. 10-7096.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 18, 2011.

Rogelio Arce, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rogelio Arce, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Arce’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Arce v. Warden,*No. 4:09-cv-02248-CMC, 2010 WL 3038626 (D.S.C. July 30, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ORDER AMENDING RULES 102, 

202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 304, 311, AND 341 

AND ADOPTING RULE 207 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA BAR RULES

PETITION OF: MITCHELL L. MCBRIDE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2022, the “Motion to Amend January 4, 2022 

Order” and the Application to Expedite are DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51382 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CRUZ GERARDO ORTIZ-GALINDO, also known as Gerardo Ortiz-Galindo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1390-1-PRM

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cruz Gerardo Ortiz-Galindo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz-Galindo contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-51382 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Ortiz-Galindo maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ortiz-Galindo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.