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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6768

SAMUEL ANTHONY WILDER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

STAN BURTT, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00136-MBS) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Samuel Anthony Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Samuel Anthony Wilder seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and 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) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilder has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilder’s 

motion for 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. 46103.

#### Protests 50720-K (A), etc., of Gordon Wolf Cowen Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 10061)

#### Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 487446.

*437(Decided August 9, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*'William S. Orriok, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When tlie above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for bearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a document styled “Notice of Motion & Motion

for Fast-Track-Processing of Settlement Conference. . . .” Therein, plaintiff requests a telephonic

settlement conference. 

As the court previously advised plaintiff, if the assigned district judge adopts the

pending findings and recommendations, the undersigned will require the parties to file pretrial

statements. In their pretrial statements, the parties will have an opportunity to express their

desire, or lack thereof, for a settlement conference. If appropriate, the court will schedule a

settlement conference thereafter. In this case, plaintiff is the only party that has expressed

interest in a settlement conference to the court. Unless and until the defendants indicate that they

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 182 Filed 08/25/09 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

 Defense counsel is encouraged to review the case and advise the court if an early

1

settlement conference would be appropriate in counsel’s view. 

2

believe that a settlement conference may potentially be productive in this action, this court will

not schedule a settlement conference simply because plaintiff so desires.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 17, 2009 motion

(Doc. No. 180) is denied.

DATED: August 25, 2009.

DAD:9

davi0878.scd

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 182 Filed 08/25/09 Page 2 of 2
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF HARRISON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th 

day of October, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In re: The Estate of James W. Fisher, 

Deceased

No. 06-14-00029-CV

Trial Court No. 2011-16,479-CCL

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants, Sheila Nikko Fisher and Carlos Gracia, III, pay all 

costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 15th day of January, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Delete or Neutralize an OTC Endpoint

To delete or neutralize an OTC Endpoint, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select Manage Organizations>Organization 

Hierarchy>Delete. The Step 1 of 2: Select the OTC Endpoint(s) page appears.

2. Select the OTC Endpoints you would like to delete and click Next as shown in Figure 1.

Or

Select the OTC Endpoints you would like to Neutralize and click Next.

Figure 1. Step 1 of 2: Select the OTC Endpoint(s)

3. The Step 2 of 2: Review OTC Endpoint(s) page appears. Verify the correct endpoint is 

marked for deletion or neutralization and click Submit. A Confirmation page appears 

confirming the OTC Endpoint was deleted.

Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Button
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3201

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Rafael Urbina-Hernandez, * Southern District of Iowa.

* 

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2006

Filed: May 30, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Urbina-Hernandez (Hernandez) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the

United States after having been deported following a felony conviction, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). At sentencing the district court1

 refused to depart

downward from the applicable Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 48 months

in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that Hernandez’s sentence is unreasonable.
-2-

Hernandez may not assign error based on the district court’s refusal to depart

at sentencing, because the court’s ruling was discretionary and not the result of a

mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart. See United States v. Morell,

429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005) (discretionary denial of downward departure is

unreviewable). Also, Hernandez has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness

that attaches to a sentence imposed within the applicable Guidelines range. See

United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, the
undersigned officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that to the knowledge of
the undersigned:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Companys Annual Report on
    Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003
    fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
    15(d), as applicable, 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/ Joseph Czyzyk                   
| |                                     
| | Joseph Czyzyk                       
| | Chief Executive Officer and Director

December 30, 2003

44
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the Corporation) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, the Corporate Controller and Principal Financial
Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies: (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
Corporation.  /s/ Elaine Swygert  May 17, 2004 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 Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                      Exhibit 3

                NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                       AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                

            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS


   The following documents of Navistar Financial Corporation are
incorporated herein by reference:

        3.1   Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar
              Financial  Corporation (as amended  and  in  effect  on
              December  15, 1987).  Filed on Form 8-K dated  December
              17, 1987.  Commission File No. 1-4146-l.

        3.2   The By-Laws of Navistar Financial Corporation (as
              amended  February 29, 1988).  Filed on Form 10-K  dated
              January 19, 1989. Commission File No. 1-4146-1.






























                             E-1
**Part 1Fiscal Year 2014 Reporting**

**SupplementSection II**

**PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT USSGL ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 2014**

***Justification: To update the account definition to clarify the use of the account during a continuing resolution.***

**T/L S2 14-01 II  - 1IRC Handout May 15, 2014**
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 1, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00589-CV 

KENDRICK IGBINOBA, Appellant 

V. 

SKYHOUSE FRISCO STATION, LP, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 001-01645-2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

The filing fee and clerk’s record in this case have not been filed. By postcards 

dated May 16, 2024 and July 18, 2024, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was 

due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. By 

letter dated July 8, 2024, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to 

provide, within ten days, verification he (1) had either paid for or made arrangements 

to pay for the clerk’s record, or (2) is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. 
 –2– 

We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this 

appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided 

the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the 

status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

240589F.P05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KENDRICK IGBINOBA, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00589-CV V. 

SKYHOUSE FRISCO STATION, 

LP, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 001-01645-

2024. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Reichek and 

Garcia participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 1, 2024
No. 55195.

#### R. Olshak *v.*United States,

protests 154148-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd. v. United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
No. 50942.

#### Protest 106705-K of Wing On Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial a Government chemist testified that he had analyzed a sample of the merchandise and found it to consist entirely of synthetic phenolic resin, and that the synthetic resin was not a binding agent. The case was submitted, plaintiff citing Abstract 49907. Upon the record presented and following the authority cited, the mah jong sets in question were held properly dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
Exhibit 31.1

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.
                     CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief Executive Officer of Essex Property Trust,
Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.;
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;

1. 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;
2. The general partner's other certifying officers 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 registrant and have:
3. 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;
4. 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
5. 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

1. The general partner's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the general partner's auditors and the audit committee of the
general partner's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

1. 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 data; and
2. 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.

August 13, 2003

By: /s/ KEITH R. GUERICKE

Keith R. Guericke
                  Cheif Executive Officer
                  Essex Property Trust, Inc., general partner of
                  Essex Portfolio, L.P.

---
Exhibit 10(e)



                              First Amendment to
                             INTERCO INCORPORATED
                        Retirement Plan for Directors


     1.     The name of the Plan is changed to "Furniture Brands
     International Retirement Plan for Directors."

     2.     The following sentence is added to the end of Section 2 of the
     Plan:

            "Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, no non-
            employee director shall be eligible to receive benefits 
            under the Plan unless he shall have been so eligible as 
            of July 29, 1997."

     3.     Section 3 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety, and the
     following is inserted in its stead:

            "Non-employee directors eligible to receive benefits under 
            this Plan shall be paid the sum of $24,000 per year for 
            the life of the non-employee director, commencing with the 
            last day of the month next following his termination of 
            service as a non-employee director.



     By Authority of the
     Furniture Brands International, Inc.
     Board of Directors

     July 29, 1997<PAGE>
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. COX,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-CV-0065 MCE CKD

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

The court permitted petitioner to perpetuate the testimony of Dr. Albert Globus, five 

social history witnesses, and Juror Kurtzman. (ECF Nos. 157, 163.) Respondent seeks discovery 

prior to determining the method for taking the testimony of each of the lay witnesses and prior to 

deposing Dr. Globus. (ECF No. 165.) In addition, respondent informs the court that he is 

willing to stipulate to issuance of a protective order like the one approved in Lenart v. Warden, 

2:05-cv-1912 MCE CKD (ECF Nos. 139, 141). (Id.) 

Accordingly, the court sets the following schedule for any discovery related to the taking 

of the testimony of the seven witnesses identified above. 

1. Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall file any motion for 

discovery related to the taking of the testimony of Dr. Albert Globus, Marjorie Comer, 

Joanne Wells, Shirley Garrett, Timothy Jayne, Sr., Fairman Jayne, and David 

Kurtzman. Respondent should not notice the motion for hearing. If the parties seek a 

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 169 Filed 09/22/15 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

27

28

2

hearing, they shall notify the court within ten days after the date scheduled for filing 

the reply. 

2. Within thirty days of the filed date of respondent’s motion, petitioner shall file an 

opposition. Respondent may file a reply within fourteen days thereafter.

3. If respondent does not move for discovery as set forth in paragraph 1, petitioner may 

proceed to schedule the testimony depositions.

4. Within twenty days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a proposed 

protective order. If the proposed protective order varies from the protective order 

issued in Lenart, petitioner shall meet and confer with respondent before filing it to 

obtain respondent’s position on the changes and shall notify the court regarding 

respondent’s position. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015

Cox testi depo disc.or

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 169 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2
No. 60819.

#### K. Ginsburg, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 249189-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract *52959105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letters “B” and “C” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.