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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LUCIANO TONELLI, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-698-TSZ-JPD

)

v. )

)

SGT. AUTRY, et al., ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff is a Washington state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He brings

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has moved for appointment of counsel. 

Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and the balance of the record, the

court does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to have

counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do

so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986);

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.

1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims himself. 

Case 2:06-cv-00698-TSZ Document 5 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

PAGE - 2

Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances that

warrant appointment of counsel. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable

Thomas S. Zilly.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00698-TSZ Document 5 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8358

ANTONIO CHARLES BLOW, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN STANSBERRY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (2:08-cv-00426-RGD-TEM)

Submitted: May 14, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Antonio Charles Blow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio Charles Blow, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Blow v. Stansberry, No. 2:08-cv-00426-

RGD-TEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2008). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7398

GREGORY RENARD DAVIS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. B. M. ANTONELLI , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:18

- cv
- 01275

- HMH )

Submitted : January 22, 2019 Decided: January 25, 2019

Before MOTZ , KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gregory Renard Davis , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Renard Davis , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that Davis failed to satisfy administrative exhaustion requirements, Davis has forfeited appellate review of this dispositive
conclusion

. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment

. 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.
AFFIRMED
S. Con. Res. 62 Agreed to November 12, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That (a) a revised edition of the brochure entitled ‘‘How

Our Laws Are Made’’, under the direction of the Parliamentarian

of the House of Representatives in consultation with the Parliamentarian of the Senate, shall be printed as a Senate document,

with suitable paper cover in the style selected by the chairman

of the Joint Committee on Printing.

(b) There shall be printed—

(1)(A) 250,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the

House of Representatives, distributed in equal numbers to each

Member;

(B) 100,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the Senate,

distributed in equal numbers to each Member;

(C) 2,000 copies of the brochure for the use of the Joint

Committee on Printing; and

(D) 1,400 copies of the brochure for distribution to the

depository libraries; or

(2) if the total printing and production costs of copies

in paragraph (1) exceed $180,000, such number of copies of

the brochure as does not exceed total printing and production
S. Con. Res. 62—2

costs of $180,000, with distribution to be allocated in the same

proportion as in paragraph (1).

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NARCISSUS SWANIGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEF UTHECHT,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5120 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS WITH

PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this petition for habeas corpus relief be dismissed

with prejudice as time barred by the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). As detailed

by the Magistrate Judge, a challenge to Petitioner’s 1995 conviction is several years time barred as

the last day of the one year time frame expired on June 21, 1999. Petitioner does not dispute the

running of the statute of limitations, but asserts the statute is inapplicable because his sentence is

invalid on its face. The Court is unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner's claim that he is

currently challenging a sentencing discrepancy and not his conviction is still a challenge to his

underlying conviction and sentence subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

The Court, having reviewed the petition for habeas corpus, the Report and Recommendation

Case 3:06-cv-05120-FDB Document 18 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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 ORDER - 2

of Judge J. Kelly Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, Objections thereto, and the remaining

record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner's federal habeas petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to Magistrate

Judge J. Kelly Arnold.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05120-FDB Document 18 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
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 Startech Environmental Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter J. Scanlon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.





/s/  Peter J. Scanlon
-----------------------------
     Peter J. Scanlon
     Chief Financial Officer


March 22, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-Q FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,635,438
<SECURITIES>                      2,345,636
<RECEIVABLES>                        22,883
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         150,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,199,047
<PP&E>                              506,229
<DEPRECIATION>                      438,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,505,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               187,739
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         16,294,620
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,505,057
<SALES>                              40,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     40,183
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        53,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    633,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (580,438)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (580,438)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (580,438)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.11)



</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

June 21, 1949

No. 53313.

petition 6620-R (New York).

#### McCurrach Organization, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Molbison, J.

From the record it was clear that the advance in value which resulted in the imposition of additional duties was the result of an honest‘difference of opinion between the importer and the customs authorities. Upon the entire record it was held that the entry of the merchandise at less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case ■or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted..
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on page 3 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  662,177
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            17,364
<ALLOWANCES>                             12,000
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        937,541
<PP&E>                                  316,967
<DEPRECIATION>                          174,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,529,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   467,647
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                             21,336,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                          (22,605,691)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,529,372
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         71,262
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           161,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      3,446,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,252,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (4,842,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (4,842,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (4,842,511)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.46)


</TABLE>
No. 67194.

protests 59/12288, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boiled wool fiber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 107, C.D. 2320), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### GOLDTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Midas Mouse International PTY, Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1430.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 16, 2001.

Before PAULINE NEWMAN, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed, Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 5.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT








U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


Washington, DC 20549








Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to the incorporation and use in this Annual Report of Daulton Capital, Inc. on Form 10-K of my audit report, dated July 13, 2011, relating to the accompanying balance sheet as of


April 30, 2011 and April 30, 2010 and therelated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the yearsthen ended including the three month periods ended April 30, 2011 and 2010, and for the period from inception (January 8, 2008) to April 30, 2011.





/s/ John Kinross-Kennedy, CPA







Irvine, California


August 11, 2011
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00297

- CR

Adam Ahmad Noureddine , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BY RNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the order modifying the conditions of community supervision entered by

the tr i a l court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this

appeal . Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is

indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is ma de.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 17

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit

retroactive increases in taxes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 26, 1997

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. MCCAIN,

Mr. KYL, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to prohibit retroactive increases in taxes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 by the Congress:
2

•SJ 17 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No Federal tax shall be imposed for the

3 period before the date of enactment of the tax.

4 ‘‘SECTION 2. This article takes effect on the date of

5 its ratification.’’.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 10

To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the State

of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1997

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources

JOINT RESOLUTION

To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature

of the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, as required by section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An

4 Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii

5 into the Union’’, approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4),

6 the United States consents to the following amendments

7 to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, adopted

8 by the State of Hawaii in the manner required for State

9 legislation:
2

SJ 10 IS

1 (1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii,

2 1993.

3 (2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii,

4 1994.

Æ
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 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,

Defendants

Case No. C06-5282RBL/JKA

ORDER REGARDING

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

This civil rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is a motion to substitute Joan K. Mell and Miller

Quinlan & Auter, P.S. Inc. as counsel for defendants in this action who were formerly represented by

Kenneth J. Diamond and Winterbauer & Diamond, PLLC. The motion is unopposed. This case is

on appeal and a final order dismissing the action was entered on July 23, 2007, (Dkt # 57). This

court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order in this case and any motion to substitute counsel should be

addressed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel.

DATED this 10 day of September 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05282-RBL Document 65 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.01


                            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 Crown Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the 2nd Quarter 2003 ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jay Mealey, President 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(b) 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.




/s/ Jay Mealey
------------------------------
Jay Mealey
Chief Executive Officer
August 19, 2003


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
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.