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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6479

GLENN CALVIN LAWHORN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. E. WRIGHT, JR.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:12-cv-00203-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell 

Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lawhorn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 18 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 19 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 20 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 21 of 22
Case 17-10997-BFK Doc 1 Filed 03/27/17 Entered 03/27/17 12:45:40 Desc Main

 Document Page 22 of 22
EXHIBIT 32.2


The following certification  accompanies North Bay Bancorp's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and
IC 25967, dated March 21, 2003.


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay
Bancorp for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, I, Lee-Ann Cimino,  Chief Financial
Officer of North Bay Bancorp, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay Bancorp for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004,  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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of
North Bay Bancorp for the quarter ended June 30, 2004,  fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of North
Bay Bancorp.


Dated:  August 11, 2004

                                   /s/ LEE-ANN CIMINO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   LEE-ANN CIMINO
                                   Chief Financial Officer




                                       26
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: )

) Bankruptcy Case

JEFFREY L. WATSON ) No. 17-11147-KHK

AMY L. WATSON, )

) Chapter 7

Debtors. )

REPORT OF RETURNED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION

The undersigned trustee reports as follows:

1. The trustee is in receipt of distribution funds returned to the estate by Internal

Revenue Service in the amount $3,226.66.

2. The trustee proposes a further distribution of $3,226.66 as outlined in the

proposed distribution report attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. The trustee’s individual estate property record and report is attached hereto as

Exhibit B.

4. The trustee’s cash receipts and disbursements record is attached hereto Exhibit C.

Dated: March 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

H. JASON GOLD, TRUSTEE

H. Jason Gold, Trustee

101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20001

By: /s/ H. Jason Gold

H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No. 19117

Chapter 7 Trustee

H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No. 19117

101 Constitution Avenue, NW

Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20001

Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 17-11147-KHK Doc 110 Filed 03/07/19 Entered 03/07/19 12:47:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of March 20198, a copy of the foregoing

Notice was served via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System on all parties receiving such

notification, and by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.

1

/s/ H. Jason Gold

H. Jason Gold

H. JASON GOLD, TRUSTEE

101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202.689.2800

Fax: 202.689.2860

1

 Pursuant to Local Rule 5005-1(C)(8), the attached service list is not being served on each of the parties, but is

attached to the original Certificate of Service filed with the Court.

- 2 -

Case 17-11147-KHK Doc 110 Filed 03/07/19 Entered 03/07/19 12:47:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
* 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. 00-21079

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS A. NASH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAUL F. MILLS, Doctor; NAIK, Doctor; L. ASCHBERGER,

Physician Assistant; LE, Doctor; HIRSCH, Lieutenant;

JAMES DANE, Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-1437

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

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis A. Nash appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint against the above-named defendants as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).

Although Nash identifies seven points of error, the only

issue he briefs is whether the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his deliberate indifference claims. 

Accordingly, because Nash does not brief his remaining issues, or
No. 00-21079 

-2-

address his claim of excessive force, those issues are deemed

abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993).

 We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing Nash’s deliberate indifference claims. 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Berry v. Brady, 192

F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment

is AFFIRMED.

Nash has filed motions for the appointment of counsel, for

an emergency temporary restraing order, and for an injunction

pending appeal. All motions are DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MARTHA FELDER,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL, PENN MEDICINE, HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM, THE TRUSTEES OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 121 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### § 771.139 Limitations on actions.

Notices announcing decisions by the Administration or by other Federal agencies on a transportation project may be published in the Federal Register indicating that such decisions are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(*l*). Claims arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of any such decisions are time barred unless filed within 150 days after the date of publication of the limitations on claims notice by FHWA or FTA. Claims arising under Federal law seeking judicial review of any such decisions are time barred unless filed within 2 years after the date of publication of the limitations on claims notice by FRA. These time periods do not lengthen any shorter time period for seeking judicial review that otherwise is established by the Federal law under which judicial review is allowed.[5] This provision does not create any right of judicial review or place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated the terms of a permit, license, or approval.

###### Footnotes -
  771.139

[5]The FHWA published a detailed discussion of the Department's interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 139(l), in appendix E to the 'SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process: Final Guidance,' dated November 15, 2006. The implementation procedures in appendix E apply only to FHWA projects. The setion 6002 guidance, including appendix E, is available at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/*, or in hard copy by request.
§ 245a.16 Continuous physical presence from November 6, 1986, through May 4, 1988. ( a ) The Service will determine whether an alien was continuously physically present in the United States from November 6, 1986, through May 4, 1988, based on the evidence provided by the alien. An alien must provide with the application evidence establishing his or her continuous physical presence in the United States from November 6, 1986, through May 4, 1988. Evidence establishing the alien's continuous physical presence in the United States from November 6, 1986, to May 4, 1988, may consist of any documentation issued by any governmental or nongovernmental authority, provided such evidence bears the name of the applicant, was dated at the time it was issued, and bears the signature, seal, or other authenticating instrument of the authorized representative of the issuing authority, if the document would normally contain such authenticating instrument.
( b ) For purposes of this section, an alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United States by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States. Also, brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States are not limited to absences with advance parole. Brief, casual, and innocent absence(s) as used in this paragraph means temporary, occasional trips abroad as long as the purpose of the absence from the United States was consistent with the policies reflected in the immigration laws of the United States.
( c ) An alien who has been absent from the United States in accordance with the Service's advance parole procedures shall not be considered as having interrupted his or her continuous physical presence as required at the time of filing an application under this section.
[66 FR 29673, June 1, 2001, as amended at 67 FR 38351, June 4, 2002]
#### § 222.174 What prohibitions apply to these funds?

Grant funds under this program may not be used to supplant or replace other available non-Federal construction money. These grant funds may be used for emergency or modernization activities only to the extent that they supplement the amount of construction funds that would, in the absence of these grant funds, be available to a grantee from non-Federal funds for these purposes.

# Example 1. “Supplanting.”

An LEA signs a contract for a $300,000 roof replacement and plans to use its capital expenditure fund to pay for the renovation. Since the LEA already has non-Federal funds available for the roof project, it may not now use a grant from this program to pay for the project or replace its own funds in order to conserve its capital fund.

# Example 2. “Non-supplanting.”

The LEA from the example of supplanting that has the $300,000 roof commitment has also received a $400,000 estimate for the replacement of its facility's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. The LEA has not made any commitments for the HVAC system because it has no remaining funds available to pay for that work. Since other funds are not available, it would not be supplanting if the LEA received an emergency grant under this program to pay for the HVAC system.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7707(b))
#### Poison Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Cora M. Uebelhoer, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PANNELL KERR
FORSTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          79,226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  341,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,826
<PP&E>                                         142,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               (120,783)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 827,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,445,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   827,208
<SALES>                                        166,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,477
<CGS>                                           17,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,814
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 14,246

 12,622

 12,989

 12,569

 11,047

 14,376

 14,591

 15,741

 15,514

 16,549

 14,943

 13,483

 12,839

 13,345

 12,719

 13,799

 14,254

 15,454

 17,543

 17,926

 17,982

 18,351

 16,448

 16,472

 15,176

 14,947

 15,185

 15,202

 15,054

 15,923

 7,517

 6,018

 6,568

 5,522

 4,510

 6,269

 4,590

 5,614

 4,161

 6,375

 7,089

 6,742

 5,355

 5,898

 5,156

 4,921

 5,056

 5,580

 6,417

 6,967

 6,520

 7,188

 7,309

 6,678

 6,353

 5,876

 6,103

 6,814

 7,018

 5,991

 10,790

 9,476

 9,044

 8,839

 7,812

 9,428

 8,485

 9,551

 9,476

 10,438

 10,773

 9,628

 9,148

 9,082

 8,709

 8,365

 8,411

 9,415

 10,769

 11,346

 11,478

 11,645

 11,029

 10,427

 9,920

 9,844

 10,256

 10,713

 10,959

 10,906

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 1, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### § 280.1 Notice of intention to fine; administrative proceedings not exclusive.

Whenever a district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office has reason to believe that any person has violated any of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and has thereby become liable to the imposition of an administrative fine under the Immigration and Nationality Act, he shall cause a Notice of Intention to Fine, Form I-79, to be served as provided in this part. Nothing in this subchapter shall affect, restrict, or prevent the institution of a civil suit, in the discretion of the Attorney General, under the authority contained in section 280 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[22 FR 9807, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 54 FR 18649, May 2, 1989]
#### § 105.30 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the Department. As provided in § 105.41(b), the definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Manouch Moshayedi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SimpleTech, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(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; and

(d) 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 an annual report) 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(s) 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 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 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 control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ MANOUCH MOSHAYEDI  
|                      |  |  |  | Manouch Moshayedi      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer