alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6831

ALKEIM D. HOWARD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CARL MANIS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 01041

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Alkeim D. Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alkeim D. Howard seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of app ealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juri sts 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 procedur al 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 rec ord and conclude that Howard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma paup e ris, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 25.30-80 Location and number of fire extinguishers required for vessels constructed prior to August 22, 2016. Vessels contracted for prior to August 22, 2016 must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Previously installed extinguishers with extinguishing capacities smaller than what is required in tables 25.30-20(a)(1) and 25.30-20(b)(1) of this subpart need not be replaced and may be continued in service so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) All new equipment and installations must meet the applicable requirements in this subpart for new vessels.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48246, July 22, 2016]
#### § 167.20-17 Bilge pumps, bilge piping and sounding arrangements.

The number, capacity, and arrangement of bilge pumps and bilge piping shall be in accordance with the requirements for cargo vessels contained in parts 50 to 61 of Subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter. Sounding pipes shall be fitted in each compartment, except those accessible at all times. The main and secondary drain systems installed in accordance with U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard Construction Specifications shall be accepted as meeting the intent of this section.

[CGFR 52-43, 17 FR 9542, Oct. 18, 1952]
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.160 Rescue boat embarkation, launching and recovery arrangements. ( a ) Each rescue boat must be capable of being launched with the vessel making headway of 5 knots in calm water. A painter may be used to meet this requirement.
( b ) Each rescue boat embarkation and launching arrangement must permit the rescue boat to be boarded and launched in the shortest possible time.
( c ) The rescue boat must meet the embarkation and launching arrangement requirements of §§ 199.110 (e) and (g), 199.150, 199.155, and if the launching arrangement uses falls and a winch, § 199.153.
( d ) If the rescue boat is one of the vessel's survival craft, the rescue boat must also meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) The rescue boat must meet the muster and embarkation arrangement requirements of § 199.110 and the launching station requirements of § 199.120.
( 2 ) If the launching arrangement uses a single fall, the rescue boat may have an automatic disengaging apparatus approved under approval series 160.170 instead of a lifeboat release mechanism.
( e ) Rapid recovery of the rescue boat must be possible when loaded with its full complement of persons and equipment. If the rescue boat is also a lifeboat, rapid recovery must be possible when loaded with its lifeboat equipment and an approved rescue boat complement of at least six persons.
( f ) Each rescue boat launching appliance must be fitted with a powered winch motor.
( g ) Each rescue boat launching appliance must be capable of hoisting the rescue boat when loaded with its full rescue boat complement of persons and equipment at a rate of not less than 0.3 meters per second (59 feet per minute).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY CRANE RENTAL, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,950)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,473
<PP&E>                                         713,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 751,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,187
<BONDS>                                        697,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   751,204
<SALES>                                         97,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,585
<CGS>                                           65,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,370)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**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 quarterly report of Axonyx Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gosse B. Bruinsma, M.D, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
|   | 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ S. Colin Neill                               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| S. Colin Neill                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |   |

November 8, 2005 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0049. BRYCE v. HATFIELD.

Michele Bryce pro se filed a motion pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 40 (b).

In her motion, Bryce requests that this Court require the Superior Court of Lee

County to transmit to this Court for docketing her appeal in her action against Henry

Hatfield. It appears that, in essence, Bryce is seeking pretrial appellate review of the

trial court’s order denying her motion to join a necessary party before proceeding to

a trial on the merits. Such an interlocutory order is reviewable before final judgment

only if the appellant applies for and is granted an interlocutory appeal as provided in

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Chaney v. Harrison & Lynam, LLC, 308 Ga. App. 808 (708

SE2d 672) (2011); S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 193 Ga. App. 476 (388

SE2d 67) (1989). 

Although Bryce filed a pleading styled as “a petition for a writ of mandamus,”

the denial of which would be directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7), we

are not bound by that designation. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 589-590

(690 SE2d 397) (2010) (The standards applicable to a motion depends upon the issues

raised, as “substance, rather than nomenclature, governs pleadings.”) (citations and

punctuation omitted); Cain v. State, 275 Ga. 784, 786 (573 SE2d 46) (2002) (Under

Georgia law, the courts are not bound by the designation given to a motion by a party

but “look to substance over nomenclature.”) (citations and punctuation omitted).

Rather, looking to the substance Bryce’s pleadings, she has not shown that any

immediate action is necessary to preserve jurisdiction of her anticipated appeal from

the trial court’s denial of her joinder motion or to prevent the contested issue from

May 01, 2017
becoming moot. See Rule 40 (b) (“In the exercise of its inherent power, this Court

may issue such orders or give such direction to the trial court as may be necessary to

preserve jurisdiction of an appeal or to prevent the contested issue from becoming

moot. This power shall be exercised sparingly. Generally, no order shall be made or

direction given in an appeal until it has been docketed in this Court.”). Accordingly,

her Rule 40 (b) motion is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/01/2017
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.132-19 Operating instructions and information for the ship's training manual. ( a ) Each davit must have instructions and information for the ship's training manual that use the symbols from IMO Res. A.760(18) (incorporated by reference, see § 160.132-5 of this subpart) to describe the location and operation of the davit.
( b ) The instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of this section may be combined with similar material for survival craft and rescue boats, and their complete launching systems.
( c ) The davit manufacturer must make operating instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of this section available in English to the purchaser of a davit approved by the Coast Guard.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and Recommendation. 

(Dkt. 12.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Morris 

notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service, 

as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local 

Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further 

right of appeal.” (Report & Recommendation at 10.) No objections were filed. 

In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit 

established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district 

court or else waive right to appeal” and that “a party shall be informed by the magistrate [judge] 

that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal 

Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ failure to 

object is a procedural default, waiving review of the magistrate judge’s findings by this Court. 

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (explaining that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule 

DWAYNE BLAKELY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-CV-10625 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10] 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9] 

2:15-cv-10625-LJM-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 550
2 

rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving 

review even at the district court level”); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 

2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the 

portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). 

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Report and 

accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 9) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 

10) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: January 29, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 29, 2016. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-10625-LJM-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 551
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 In June 2014, this Court dismissed a different case filed by Plaintiff James Metz, 

concluding in part, “The allegations in the Complaint do not identify any federal questions nor 

does Plaintiff state his citizenship or the citizenship of Defendants. Thus, the Court finds that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Metz v. Mansour, No. 14-12422, slip order at 2 (E.D. Mich. 

June 30, 2014). So too here. 

 Among the Defendants named in the Complaint filed in this case is “Great Lakes 

Physicians Southfield” presumably in reference to Southfield, Michigan. That would destroy 

complete diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267–68 

(1806). In any event, Metz has not pled the citizenship of each defendant, and so the Court 

cannot conclude that complete diversity exists. Daubenmire v. City of Columbus, 507 F.3d 383, 

388 (6th Cir. 2007) (“The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden to 

demonstrate standing and he must plead its components with specificity.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

JAMES METZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

UT et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11016 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 

2:15-cv-11016-LJM-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 04/01/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 11
2 

 As for the allegations in Metz’s Complaint, they are incomprehensible and do not plead a 

federal question. Metz asserts that his “head is blown off,” that he was assaulted by an “invisible 

blade,” and that he receives “bullets in [his] head at dot com every week.” (Compl. at 1–2.) As 

relief, Metz mentions “blood in urine done by cyber blade on a black surveillance of cyber 

networks so we[’]re not getting bladed all the time.” (Compl. at 2.) He also seeks $1.3 billion. 

(Id.) Because these allegations are legally frivolous and do not establish a colorable federal 

question, dismissal is proper. See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A] district 

court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a 

complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no 

longer open to discussion.”). 

 This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Metz’s application to 

proceed without prepayment of fees (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as moot. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 1, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the 

attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 1, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-11016-LJM-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 04/01/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PLANET HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE THIRTEEN
WEEKS ENDED MARCH 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                     21,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,861
<PP&E>                                         291,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,075
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,010
<SALES>                                         98,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,647
<CGS>                                           26,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (462)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10<F1>
<FN>
<F1>RESTATED PURSUANT TO SEC REGULATION S-K, ITEM 601, 
TO CONFORM TO SFAS NO. 128. "EPS-PRIMARY" DENOTES BASIC EPS.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01005607.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic

(Case C-146/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/111

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

1

---
#### Rufus Chamberlain, *Respondent, v.*The Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.