alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEREK SHANNON WALLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-115, CA-02-731-BO) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: April 1, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Shannon Walls, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Derek Shannon Walls seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walls has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). 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
No. 58746.

protest 203011-K (San Francisco).

#### United Exporters Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

At the trial, the examiner testified that the merchandise at bar is described as common Japan straw matting of the type he would now ad-visorily classify at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 1021. Based upon the established facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the entry in question.
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 37 09

__ __ __ __ __ _ Ann a Ma e Sk ib in sk i, * * App el la nt , * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e v. * Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta

. * Kath le en Seb el iu s, * [UNPUBLISHED] * App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Subm it te d: Ju ly 27, 2 01 2 Fil ed : J ul y

27 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Ann a Mae Sk ib in sk i ap pe al s th e di st ric t co u r t’s di sm is sa l of he r co m pl ai nt 1

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 13 95 w-2 2( g) (5 ). Upo n care fu l co ns id erat io n of Sk ib in sk i’s arg um en ts fo r rev ers a l , we fin d no ba si s fo r ov ert urni ng th e di st ric t co urt’s de te rm in at io ns th at Sk ib in sk i la ck ed sta ndi ng to se ek so m e of th e rel ie f sh e id en ti fie d,
se e Jo ne s v. G a l e , 4 7 0 F.3 d 12 61 , 1 26 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rev ie win g de no vo di st ric t
co ur t’s de te rm in at io n as to st an di ng ); an d th at th e so le ba si s fo r Sk ib in sk i’s ch al le ng e to th e de ci si on to te rm in at e co ve rag e fo r po st -h os pi ta l ex te nd ed care se rv ic es fo r he r

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es D ist rict Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.n o w - d e c eas ed m ot he r was no t co gn iz ab le in th is act io n, se e McAd am s v. McC or d,

58 4 F.3 d 11 11 , 11 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (d e no vo rev ie w of di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to st at e cl ai m ). The ju dg m en t i s af fir m ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MERLE L. ROYSE,

 Petitioner,

v.

BELINDA STEWART,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5440- FDB

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS

MOOT

Petitioner has filed a habeas corpus petition and application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied

because the Petitioner appears to have sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. In response to the

Report and Recommendation, Petitioner submitted the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court hereby

finds and ORDERS:

 (1) The Report and Recommendation is declined as moot; 

 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, Magistrate Judge,

Karen L. Strombom, and any other party that has appeared in this action.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05440-FDB Document 7 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) CR05-5886FDB 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) ORDER TO EXTEND PRETRIAL 

 v. ) MOTION CUT-OFF DATE 

 ) 

ADBENASSER ENNASSIME, ) 

TONYA ENNASSIME, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

ORDER

 In consideration of the parties’ joint motion for continuance of the Pretrial Motion 

cutoff date, the Court finds and rules as follows: 

 This Court finds as facts those set forth in the motion to extend the pretrial motion 

cut-off date. For the reasons set forth, the motion is GRANTED. 

 Further, the Court finds that given the need by defense counsel to fully review the 

evidence and to conduct adequate investigation, the failure to grant the requested 

continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants effective assistance of counsel and, 

despite due diligence by all parties, result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Case 3:05-cr-05886-RJB Document 23 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
 Further, the Court finds that given the large number of potential witnesses and the 

relative complexity of the case, it is unreasonable to expect either the Government or 

defense counsel to be prepared to submit motions within the time allotted. 

 The Court further finds, for the reasons set forth above, that the ends of justice 

served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and 

the defendants in a speedy trial. 

The new pretrial motion cut-off date shall be April 24, 2006. 

 DATED this 30th day of March, 2006. 

 /s/ Franklin D Burgess _

 Judge Franklin D. Burgess 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cr-05886-RJB Document 23 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12218]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Bellini and Giorgione: In the House of Taddeo Contarini” at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-22609 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
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 GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. Adams, CR05-5885FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANTHONY ADAMS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5885FDB

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the unopposed motion of the defendant to continue the trial date, and

the reasons set forth in the sealed affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion,

which are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as findings of fact, the Court

makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(I). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

Case 3:05-cr-05885-FDB Document 34 Filed 07/07/06 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 GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. Adams, CR05-5885FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from July 31, 2006 to 

October 23, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from July 31, 2006, up to

and including the new trial date of October 23, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial motions shall be due on August 28, 2006.

DONE this 7th day of July, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Russell V. Leonard 

Russell V. Leonard 

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:05-cr-05885-FDB Document 34 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Houlton Trust Company, Petitioner for Mandamus *vs.*East Branch Land Company et al.

Aroostook.

Opinion, December 14, 1938.

*Bernard Archibald,*for petitioner.

*Raymond S. Oakes,*for exceptants.

Sitting : Dunn, C. J., Sturgis, Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, JJ.

Dunn, C. J.

This is a mandamus proceeding to require the East Branch Land Company, and the president and treasurer of that corporation, to transfer certain shares of its capital stock, issued and outstanding in the name of the Houlton Trust Company, as pledgee, to such banking institution as the outright owner thereof.

Ansel L. Lumbert, then of Houlton, since deceased, originally owned the stock. He deposited his certificates as general collateral *99security for the payment of promissory notes given by him to the bank, the instant petitioner.

Evidence tends to show, as to principal, a partial reduction in the instance of one note only. All the notes are in suit.

There is evidence of the pledge, by the executrix of Mr. Lumbert’s last will, to secure her own two notes, of the already pledged certificates. These notes are to the order of the same bank as those that, in his lifetime, her testate gave. The executrix’ notes are apparently overdue and unpaid.

In this situation, the pledgee sold the collateral, at public auction, to itself (permissible under the deposit agreement), the proceeds to apply on the notes.

But, the East Branch Land Company declined, on suggestion of the executrix, who indicated possible fatal irregularity in the sale of the shares, to issue new certificates.

Issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus was ordered. The order was not, however, inclusive of the executrix, although in the petition for mandamus she had been named a defendant.

In such connection, the executrix, here exceptant, is not, in a legal sense, aggrieved.

It suffices, in respect to other exceptions, to say that, the notes still remaining unpaid in part, it is not open to the executrix to insist invalidity in the sale of the collateral. See *Winthrop Bank*v. *Jackson,*67 Me., 570.

*Exceptions overruled.*
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

AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

CARIE FRANCISCO, )

) No. C06-885RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s October 23, 2007 Order of Dismissal

(Dkt. #64) and the stipulated motion to correct the Order of Dismissal (Dkt. #65). In the

stipulated motion, “Plaintiff requests the correction of the Order of Dismissal (Dkt. #64) entered

10/23/07 to reflect that the action against defendant Jason A. Jack-Nelson has not been settled

and should not be dismissed. Claims against defendants United States Seafoods, LLC; Ocean

Alaska, LLC; Seafreeze Alaska LP; and F/T Seafreeze Alaska, ON 517242, have been settled

and should remain dismissed.” See Dkt. #65 at 1. Defendants United States Seafoods, LLC;

Ocean Alaska, LLC; and Seafreeze Alaska LP do not object correction to the Order of

Dismissal. Id. at 2.

 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to reopen and return this case to the Court’s

active caseload. The Court also hereby AMENDS the Order of Dismissal (Dkt. #64) as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jason A. Jack-Nelson have not been settled. 

Therefore, the Court VACATES the Order of Dismissal with respect to plaintiff’s claims against

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 66 Filed 11/05/07 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

AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL -2-

defendant Jason A. Jack-Nelson and plaintiff’s Motion for Default (Dkt. #54) against defendant

Jack-Nelson remains pending. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants United States Seafoods, LLC; Ocean Alaska,

LLC; and Seafreeze Alaska LP are hereby DISMISSED. This dismissal shall be without

prejudice to the right of any party upon good cause shown within sixty (60) days hereof to

reopen this cause if the reported settlement is not consummated. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension (Dkt. #58), Motions to Compel (Dkt. #56, #59, #60,

#61, #62), and Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #63) are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 66 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                         STYLING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (000 omitted)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    Three Months Ended
                                              November 27,         Year Ended            March 31,
                                              1996 to             December 31,      ------------------
                                           December 31, 1996         1997             1997      1998
                                           -----------------      ------------       -------   --------
<S>                                        <C>                    <C>                <C>       <C>
Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes........      (151)                    7,304        1,787      2,524
Fixed Charges:
  Actual Interest Expense and  
  amortization of debt issuance costs....         --                    1,847           60       1,264

         Total Fixed Charges.............         --                    1,847           60       1,264

Net Income (Loss) As Adjusted............  $   (151)              $     9,151       $ 1,847   $  3,788

Ratio....................................        N/A                     5.0x         30.1x       3.0x
                                               -------                 -------        -------   -------

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                   VANS, INC.

                            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 on Form 10-Q for the year ended
February 28, 2004 of Vans, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott J. Blechman,
the Vice President and Chief Financial 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) 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/ Scott J. Blechman*
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Scott J. Blechman
                                            Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            April 5, 2004

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Vans, Inc. and will be retained by Vans, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
October 27 , 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARTHA JANE TAYLOR , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00161

- CV V.

CASEY CRABTREE, BRIT TANY A. MCCLAIN, DAV ID CURTIS AND BARBAR A CURTIS , Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant = s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment
signed by the court below on December 1, 2010. Having considered the motion and
found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs in curred by reason of this
appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Guide for mapping types ofinformation and information systems to security categories**
 
Volumes: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:C 13.10:800-60/REV.1
Item Number:0247 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000690078
 
December 30, 2019